On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:39 PM Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 09:05:51PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 10:53:05AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 07:18:37PM +0100, Lukasz Stelmach wrote: > > > > It was <2020-11-09 pon 19:24>, when Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > Probably I have missed something and I will be greatful, if you tell me > > > > where I can find more information about software nodes. There are few > > > > users in the kernel and it isn't obvious for me how to use software > > > > nodes properly. > > > > > > Yeah, I disagree with Andy here. The lookup tables are a crutch that we > > > have until GPIO and PWM a taught to support software nodes (I need to > > > resurrect my patch series for GPIO, if you have time to test that would > > > be awesome). > > > > We don't have support for list of fwnodes, this will probably break things > > where swnode is already exist. > > > > I think Heikki may send a documentation patch to clarify when swnodes can and > > can't be used. Maybe I'm mistaken and above is a good use case by design. > > Yeah, the problem is that I'm not sure that we can limit the swnodes > for any specific purpose, or dictate very strictly how they are used > with other possible fwnodes. Generally agreed, but if there are known problems, they need to be documented at least for the time being until they are addressed. > Right now I'm thinking we should simply not talk about the > relationship a software node should have or can have with other > fwnodes (regardless of their type) in the swnode documentation. This sounds reasonable to me, with the above exception.
