[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdpX+jHQWqFAgOuHB0E3Sdge92=vcjm=xcS4Asqm8_3Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 11:53:08 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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 3, 2025 at 10:51 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Yeah, makes sense.
Fixes: e7f9ff5dc90c ("gpiolib: add support for software nodes")
Powered by blists - more mailing lists