On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:45:05 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 7:19 PM Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:43:09 +0200
> > Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:07:16 +0200
> > > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 5:56 PM Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 23:24:43 +0300
> > > > > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > Mon, May 27, 2024 at 06:14:45PM +0200, Herve Codina kirjoitti:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > > + if (!dev->of_node) {
> > > > > > > + dev_err(dev, "Missing of_node for device\n");
> > > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why do you need this? The code you have in _create_intr_ctrl() will take care
> > > > > > already for this case.
> > > > >
> > > > > The code in _create_intr_ctrl checks for fwnode and not an of_node.
> > > > >
> > > > > The check here is to ensure that an of_node is available as it will be use
> > > > > for DT overlay loading.
> > > >
> > > > So, what exactly do you want to check? fwnode check covers this.
> > > >
> > > > > I will keep the check here and use dev_of_node() instead of dev->of_node.
> > > >
> > > > It needs to be well justified as from a coding point of view this is a
> > > > duplication.
> >
> > On DT based system, if a fwnode is set it is an of_node.
> > On ACPI, if a fwnode is set is is an acpi_node.
> >
> > The core PCI, when it successfully creates the DT node for a device
> > (CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES) set the of_node of this device.
> > So we can have a device with:
> > - fwnode from ACPI
> > - of_node from core PCI creation
>
> Does PCI device creation not set fwnode?
No and IMHO it is correct.
This device has the fwnode that point to an ACPI node: The description used
for device creation.
The of_node set is created based on PCI known information.
This of_node, at PCI level is not used to create the PCI device but is created
based on an already existing PCI device.
>
> > This driver needs the of_node to load the overlay.
> > Even if the core PCI cannot create a DT node for the PCI device right
> > now, I don't expect this LAN855x PCI driver updated when the core PCI
> > is able to create this PCI device DT node.
>
> If it's really needed, I think the correct call here is is_of_node()
> to show exactly why it's not a duplication. It also needs a comment on
> top of this call.
is_of_node() will not returns the expected result.
It will return false as the fwnode->ops of the device is not related to
of_node ops but ACPI node ops :(
What do you thing it I keep the of_node test using dev_of_node() and add the
following comment:
--- 8< ---
/*
* On ACPI system, fwnode can point to the ACPI node.
* This driver needs an of_node to be used as the device-tree overlay
* target. This of_node should be set by the PCI core if it succeeds in
* creating it (CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES feature).
* Check here for the validity of the of_node.
*/
if (!dev_of_node(dev)) {
dev_err(dev, "Missing of_node for device\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
--- 8< ---
Let me know if this can be ok.
Hervé
