Hi Dan, On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:37 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 09:11:13AM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 8:59 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 09:30:23AM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > > > > Properties 'clocks', 'resets' and 'phys' have been moved from parent > > > > node to the root port childs. Hence we have to adapt the way device > > > > tree is parsed in driver code to properly align things and make all > > > > the stuff work. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > It sounds like this commit needs a fixes tag? What does "to properly > > > align things and make all the stuff work." in terms of what the user > > > sees? > > > > I submitted this driver to get mainlined and when bindings have been > > reviewed I've been told to move this stuff into child nodes. Until now > > all was also being properly working but with these properties defined > > in the parent node. So I don't think any Fixes tag is needed here. So > > hopefully changes on this patchset are the last need to get this > > properly mainlined. I've been told to just make a 'git mv' without > > zero changes from the staging driver, that's why I am submitting > > changes to staging before. > > I'm really trying to understand how this affects the user experience but > it sounds like you don't know either but you were told it was the > correct thing and it seems to work? What do you mean with "user experience" here? So to work with the future mainlined driver we need the dts file to be aligned with device tree parsing code. If we move these properties into child nodes (previous patch do this) and the code is properly aligned, for the user the change is transparent. This SoC is mostly used in openWRT where new versions compile new code and device tree completely so I don't expect any compatibility problems also because of these changes, AFAICT. > That's not ideal but I can live > with it I guess... I guess hopefully no change but it's just a > correctness issue? Seems that the bindings are more correct, moving the properties into child nodes. > > Btw, we moved from devm_reset_control_get_exclusive() to > of_reset_control_get_exclusive(). Does that mean we need to add a call > to reset_control_put() in the remove() path? Yes this has moved because we need to access the child node with 'device_node' instead of 'device'. It seems there is not another possibility with devm_* like the ones we have with clk and phy apis. Ok, so I have to manually call 'reset_control_put'. Will add it, thanks. Best regards, Sergio Paracuellos > regards, > dan carpenter >
