[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220516093418.0038845c@fixe.home>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 09:34:18 +0200
From: Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] introduce fwnode in the I2C subsystem
Le Sun, 15 May 2022 23:34:16 +0200,
Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> a écrit :
> 2022-05-14 at 16:47, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > O
> >> This series is a subset of the one that was first submitted as a larger
> >> series to add swnode support [1]. In this one, it will be focused on
> >> fwnode support only since it seems to have reach a consensus that
> >> adding fwnode to subsystems makes sense.
> >
> > From a high level view, I like this series. Though, it will need Peter's
> > ack on the I2C mux patches as he is the I2C mux maintainer. Still, I
> > wonder about the way to upstream the series. Feels like the first 5
> > patches should not go via I2C but seperately?
>
> Hi Wolfram,
>
> I also think it looks basically sane. However, there are a couple of
> comments plus promises to adjust accordingly. I guess I filed it under
> "wait for the next iteration"...
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
Hi Wolfram & Peter,
While doing the same conversion on the reset subsystem, Rob Herring
stepped in and mention the fact that this could be done using
device-tree overlay (even on system with ACPI) .
The result was that a new serie [1] which add support to create the PCI
devices of_node if not existing, and then allow drivers to applies an
overlay which describe the tree of devices as a child of a specific PCI
device of_node. There are a lot of advantages to this approach (small
patchset working for all susbystems, easier to use, description is
using already existing device-tree). There are still some concerns
about the viability of dynamic overlay but this might be settled soon.
Regards,
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220509141634.16158c38@xps-bootlin/T/
--
Clément Léger,
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists