On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 11:44:39PM +0000, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
>
> Hi Rob
>
> > This is assuming there's just 1 port and 1 endpoint, but let's be
> > specific as the bindings are (first endpoint on port 0):
> >
> > of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(client->dev.of_node, 0, -1);
> >
> > Note we could ask for endpoint 0 here, but the bindings generally allow
> > for more than 1.
> >
> > I imagine most of the other cases here are the same.
>
> I will do it on new patch-set
>
> > > - for_each_endpoint_of_node(state->dev->of_node, ep_np) {
> > > + for_each_device_endpoint_of_node(state->dev->of_node, ep_np) {
> >
> > I would skip the rename.
>
> It is needed to avoid confuse, because new function will add
> another endpoint loop.
>
> see
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240131100701.754a95ee@booty
I've read the threads already and think you should skip the rename. Just
put 'port' in the name of the new one. That and taking a port number
param should be enough distinction.
Rob
