From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [resend PATCH] driver core: property: support for generic property Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:24:11 +0100 Message-ID: <2794681.zGttLrs2tn@wuerfel> References: <1422278260-108175-1-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> <2095371.SrUNK6JsDO@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.13]:56992 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756875AbbCMPYQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:24:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Heikki Krogerus , Mika Westerberg , ACPI Devel Mailing List On Friday 13 March 2015 15:10:38 Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, January 26, 2015 03:17:40 PM Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > That doesn't seem to go in the right direction to be honest. > > > > Actually, having introduced struct fwnode_handle, we should perhaps try to > > replace both of_node and acpi_node with a single struct fwnode_handle pointer > > and then add a new fwnode_type for the "pdata" stuff. > > I agree on this, but it will be a lot of work to convert... > > > If you don't want to deal with of_node, which I can understand easily, it > > may be worth trying with acpi_node alone at this point and once you have > > the fwnode_handle pointer, you might use it for both ACPI and "pdata"? > > > > Grant, Arnd, I wonder what you think? > > That makes sense, and we can populate the fwnode_handle even when > using DT. That will allow a transition period to move everyone over to > the fwnode_handle. Agreed on both as well. Arnd