[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YoPNjPp3LMF2+qKS@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 19:30:04 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz,
Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Anatolij Gustschin <agust@...x.de>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] powerpc/52xx: Convert to use fwnode API
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 09:38:56AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 05:05:12PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:48:05PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> >> > > We may convert the GPT driver to use fwnode API for the sake
> >> > > of consistency of the used APIs inside the driver.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure about this one.
> >> >
> >> > It's more consistent to use fwnode in this driver, but it's very
> >> > inconsistent with the rest of the powerpc code. We have basically no
> >> > uses of the fwnode APIs at the moment.
> >>
> >> Fair point!
> >>
> >> > It seems like a pretty straight-forward conversion, but there could
> >> > easily be a bug in there, I don't have any way to test it. Do you?
> >>
> >> Nope, only compile testing. The important part of this series is to
> >> clean up of_node from GPIO library, so since here it's a user of
> >> it I want to do that. This patch is just ad-hoc conversion that I
> >> noticed is possible. But there is no any requirement to do so.
> >>
> >> Lemme drop this from v3.
> >
> > I just realize that there is no point to send a v3. You can just apply
> > first 3 patches. Or is your comment against entire series?
>
> No, my comment is just about this patch.
>
> I don't mind converting to new APIs when it's blocking some other
> cleanup. But given the age of this code I think it's probably better to
> just leave the rest of it as-is, unless someone volunteers to test it.
>
> So yeah I'll just take patches 1-3 of this v2 series, no need to resend.
Thanks!
One note though, the fwnode_for_each_parent_node() is not yet available in
upstream, but will be after v5.19-rc1. It means the patch 3 can't be applied
without that. That's why LKP complained on patch 4 in this series.
That said, the easiest way is to postpone it till v5.19-rc1 is out.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists