linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] device property: Add scoped fwnode child node iterators

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aLkqE9c9w9m4Axsp@kekkonen.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 08:56:35 +0300
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Jean-François Lessard <jefflessard3@...il.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] device property: Add scoped fwnode child node
 iterators

Hi Danilo,

On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 07:22:29PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> (Cc: Javier)
> 
> On Wed Sep 3, 2025 at 3:18 PM CEST, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Do we really need the available variant?
> >
> > Please see
> > <URL:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/Zwj12J5bTNUEnxA0@kekkonen.localdomain/>.
> >
> > I'll post a patch to remove fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(), too.
> 
> Either I'm missing something substantial or the link does indeed not provide an
> obvious justification of why you want to send a patch to remove
> fwnode_get_next_available_child_node().
> 
> Do you mean to say that all fwnode backends always return true for
> device_is_available() and hence the fwnode API should not make this distinction?
> 
> I.e. are you referring to the fact that of_fwnode_get_next_child_node() always
> calls of_get_next_available_child() and swnode has no device_is_available()
> callback and hence is always available? What about ACPI?

On ACPI there's no such concept on ACPI data nodes so all data nodes are
considered to be available. So effectively the fwnode_*available*() is
always the same as the variant without _available().

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus