[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240301223942.GA3179769-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 16:39:42 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
marek.vasut@...il.com,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 0/4] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach
to loops.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 02:27:10PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
>
> Some discussion occured on previous posting.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240223124432.26443-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com/
>
> Summary:
> * fwnode conversions should be considered when applying this
> infrastructure to a driver. Perhaps better to move directly to
> the generic FW property handling rather than improve existing
> of specific code.
> * There are lots of potential places to use this based on detections
> from Julia's coccinelle scripts linked below.
>
> The equivalent device_for_each_child_node_scoped() series for
> fwnode will be queued up in IIO for the merge window shortly as
> it has gathered sufficient tags. Hopefully the precdent set there
> for the approach will reassure people that instantiating the
> child variable inside the macro definition is the best approach.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240217164249.921878-1-jic23@kernel.org/
>
> v2: Andy suggested most of the original converted set should move to
> generic fwnode / property.h handling. Within IIO that was
> a reasonable observation given we've been trying to move away from
> firmware specific handling for some time. Patches making that change
> to appropriate drivers posted.
> As we discussed there are cases which are not suitable for such
> conversion and this infrastructure still provides clear benefits
> for them.
>
> Ideally it would be good if this introductory series adding the
> infrastructure makes the 6.9 merge window. There are no dependencies
> on work queued in the IIO tree, so this can go via devicetree
> if the maintainers would prefer. I've had some off list messages
> asking when this would be merged, as there is interest in building
> on it next cycle for other parts of the kernel (where conversion to
> fwnode handling may be less appropriate).
I'll let you take it. For the series:
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
I've got some drivers/of/ conversions too, but they are probably next
cycle at this point.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists