Hi Saravana,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:00 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:43 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 8:19 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:11 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:11 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > The OF_POPULATED flag was set to let fw_devlink know that the device
> > > > > tree node will not have a struct device created for it. This information
> > > > > is used by fw_devlink to avoid deferring the probe of consumers of this
> > > > > device tree node.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's use fwnode_dev_initialized() instead because it achieves the same
> > > > > effect without using OF specific flags. This allows more generic code to
> > > > > be written in driver core.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your patch!
> > > >
> > > > > --- a/drivers/soc/renesas/rcar-sysc.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/renesas/rcar-sysc.c
> > > > > @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ static int __init rcar_sysc_pd_init(void)
> > > > >
> > > > > error = of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(np, &domains->onecell_data);
> > > > > if (!error)
> > > > > - of_node_set_flag(np, OF_POPULATED);
> > > > > + fwnode_dev_initialized(&np->fwnode, true);
> > > >
> > > > As drivers/soc/renesas/rmobile-sysc.c is already using this method,
> > > > it should work fine.
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > i.e. will queue in renesas-devel for v6.4.
>
> I hope you meant queue it up for 6.3 and not 6.4?
V6.4.
The deadline for submitting pull requests for the soc tree is rc6.
Sorry, your series was posted too late to make that.
> > > Thanks! Does that mean I should drop this from this series? If two
> > > maintainers pick the same patch up, will it cause problems? I'm
> > > eventually expecting this series to be picked up by Greg into
> > > driver-core-next.
> >
> > Indeed. Patches for drivers/soc/renesas/ are supposed to go upstream
> > through the renesas-devel and soc trees. This patch has no dependencies
> > on anything else in the series (or vice versa), so there is no reason
> > to deviate from that, and possibly cause conflicts later.
>
> This series is supposed to fix a bunch of issues and I vaguely think
> the series depends on this patch to work correctly on some Renesas
> systems. You are my main renesas person, so it's probably some issue
> you hit. Is you pick it up outside of this series I need to keep
> asking folks to pick up two different patch threads. I don't have a
> strong opinion, just a FYI. If you can take this patch soon, I don't
> have any concerns.
Oh right, you do remove OF_POPULATED handling in
"[PATCH v2 09/11] of: property: Simplify of_link_to_phandle()".
It might be wise to postpone that removal, as after your series,
there are stillseveral users left, some of them might be impacted.
I do plan to test your full series on all my boards, but probably that
won't happen this week.
> > BTW, I will convert to of_node_to_fwnode() while applying.
>
> Sounds good.
If you still want this to land in v6,3 (with the of_node_to_fwnode()
conversion):
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
