[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vecxx+YBrZ9d4oZzqS_X3cxUQ4UaSvjqjhuaoJ4O9xauw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:43:03 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxarm@...wei.com, haifeng.wei@...wei.com,
charles.chenxin@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@...wei.com> wrote:
> 在 2016/2/24 21:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com> wrote:
>> - why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls?
>> What prevents us to move to device property API directly?
> Yes, it looks more reasonable by using devce_property. Howerver,
> device_get_child_node_count was used here to find each child node. This
> API output the fwnode_handle for each child node directly, but device
> property APIs need 'dev' data instead. Actually, the effects of fwnode_*()
> and device_*() are the same. So, I used fwnode_*() APIs here.
Right, looks okay then.
>>> - node = dev->of_node;
>>> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node)
>>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node))
>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>
>> So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check?
>>
> Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was
> supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check.
Yes, but like I said below device_get_child_node_count() will take
care of that, will it?
>>>
>>> - nports = of_get_child_count(node);
>>> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev);
>>> if (nports == 0)
>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>
>> ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child.
> This one fail? yes, it will return to failure.
> I am not very clear here.
See above.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists