[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aQh7JUeQ84WwUzW9@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 11:51:33 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	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>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/10] gpio: swnode: don't use the swnode's name as
 the key for GPIO lookup
On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 10:35:24AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 
> Looking up a GPIO controller by label that is the name of the software
> node is wonky at best - the GPIO controller driver is free to set
> a different label than the name of its firmware node. We're already being
> passed a firmware node handle attached to the GPIO device to
> swnode_get_gpio_device() so use it instead for a more precise lookup.
Sounds to me like a ready-to-go patch and even maybe with a Fixes tags, but
it's up to you. So, why not apply it so we have less churn in the next version
of the series?
-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists