[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181121123637.GB26377@kuha.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:36:37 +0200
From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] device property: Add fwnode_get_name() helper
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:03:45PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, November 8, 2018 5:51:52 PM CET Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the second version of my proposal for this helper. The
> > first version can be checked here:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/5/326
> >
> > In order to support also ACPI properly, I decided to change the API.
> > The function fwnode_name() is now fwnode_get_name(), and instead of
> > returning pointer to the name, the function copies it to a buffer. I
> > did that because acpica does not offer a way to get a pointer to the
> > node name, and the name is clearly expected to be accessed only with
> > the namespace lock held.
> >
> > I think this is better approach in any case. It will also solve the
> > problem of getting rid of the unit-address part from DT node names.
> >
> > Let me know what you guys think.
> >
> > --
> > heikki
> >
> >
> > Heikki Krogerus (4):
> > device property: Introduce fwnode_get_name()
> > ACPI: property: Add acpi_fwnode_name()
> > of/property: Add of_fwnode_name()
> > device property: Drop get_named_child_node callback
> >
> > drivers/acpi/property.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > drivers/base/property.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > drivers/of/property.c | 26 ++++++++++--------------
> > include/linux/fwnode.h | 6 +++---
> > include/linux/property.h | 2 ++
> > 5 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> >
> >
>
> I will be expecting at least one more iteration of this series to address the
> Rob's comments.
Yes, I'll send a new version soon.
thanks,
--
heikki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists