On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 6:25 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:32:26AM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > > I do think it can simplify driver code too; a lot of them aren't written > > to parse platform data to get the init data, as they're just relying on > > reading it from devicetree so in the event that we get more cases like > > this, we need to modify those drivers to look for platform data too. On > > the other hand, even the drivers that don't directly call > > of_get_regulator_init_data() still do that lookup during the > > regulator_of_get_init_data() call in regulator_register(), so the ones > > that do parse platform data for init_data structs will check DT as part > > of regulator_register() anyway. Imitating that seems simpler to me. > > The driver code is trivial boilerplate, assuming someone doesn't go and > implement a helper to register stuff separately like I suggested. The > proposed swnode stuff would involve duplicating the DT parsing code. > This seems like a whole lot of effort for something that provides a > worse result than either of the existing things. I'm not sure I follow. Where did you see the duplication when I saw the other way around? Converting code from OF to fwnode APIs in most cases is smooth and doesn't add any overhead to the codebase, -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
