On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:15:18PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 17-04-19 11:32, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:19:28AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > <snip> > > > > That is not going to work since the (virtual) mux / orientation-switch > > > devices are only registered once the driver binds to the piusb30532 i2c > > > device, so when creating the nodes we only have the piusb30532 i2c device. > > > > It's not a problem, that's why we have the software nodes. The nodes > > can be created before the device entires. The node for pi3usb30532 > > will just be the parent node for the new nodes we add for the mux and > > switch. > > > > > I've been thinking some more about this and an easy fix is to have separate > > > fwnode_match functions for typec_switch_match and typec_mux_match and have > > > them check that the dev_name ends in "-mux" resp. "-switch" that requires > > > only a very minimal change to "usb: typec: Registering real device entries for the muxes" > > > and then everything should be fine. > > > > I don't want to do anymore device name matching unless we have to, and > > here we don't have to. We can name the nodes for those virtual mux and > > switch, and then just do fwnode_find_named_child_node() in > > pi3usb30532.c for both of them. > > Thinking more about this, I have a feeling that this makes things needlessly > complicated, checking the dev_name *ends* in "-mux" resp. "-switch" should be > 100% reliable since we call: > > dev_set_name(&sw->dev, "%s-switch", dev_name(parent)); > dev_set_name(&mux->dev, "%s-mux", dev_name(parent)); > > When registering the switch / mux, so I believe doing name (suffix) comparison > here is fine and much simpler. Anyways this is just my 2 cents on this, I'm > happy with either solution, your choice. You do have a point. I'll take a look how the two options look like, but maybe your way is better after all. thanks, -- heikki
