[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYYyrD1qiSj3=F5yqxxoTTJn+rKovpotCk+UZq4TMCraQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 09:37:12 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: "Jiri Slaby (SUSE)" <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, maz@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...nel.org>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 30/57] irqdomain: pinctrl: Switch to irq_domain_create_*()
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:32 AM Jiri Slaby (SUSE) <jirislaby@...nel.org> wrote:
> irq_domain_add_*() interfaces are going away as being obsolete now.
> Switch to the preferred irq_domain_create_*() ones. Those differ in the
> node parameter: They take more generic struct fwnode_handle instead of
> struct device_node. Therefore, of_fwnode_handle() is added around the
> original parameter.
>
> Note some of the users can likely use dev->fwnode directly instead of
> indirect of_fwnode_handle(dev->of_node). But dev->fwnode is not
> guaranteed to be set for all, so this has to be investigated on case to
> case basis (by people who can actually test with the HW).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby (SUSE) <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
I assume there are dependencies in the series, if this is something
I should just apply to the pinctrl tree, tell me.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists