From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D0E229DB99; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 17:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756920154; cv=none; b=kr/CYAfrWdP8XJcO3KXBOw/aX79vRdftfarkae6S6pb96acXW6rZJ3O/9etUC1Qc0v1zpqRNlOckPAh9fFaGqyb5d0NCoswxmJllMoSE6kZlzcdYFqRlu77SUGovixkEoLj5ttaPF2nRTFBodMU8ccs2eboaexDTGhRUMFu9vX8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756920154; c=relaxed/simple; bh=38qRBcVLemJuIO3Zcx8DVpVL1QoFDMKDswFRU8GkwHs=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:Cc:To:From: References:In-Reply-To; b=WhlBYIYhrFzAcafaniueA1lEr7+oLe+GEL3qJLJ+DgBLrKJUkKRbFpIWZvrJOHdz/f5e+XZwovNChddLiZQymyAoZiNODOcLMb9ki5GUmLVB0hj+EFIxqHiODD6U+0Gcu32ToH8osxegkGOFwZWoXlr6oRND605pAaZIlaFhfPw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Cky2BVTe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Cky2BVTe" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37C9FC4CEE7; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 17:22:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1756920153; bh=38qRBcVLemJuIO3Zcx8DVpVL1QoFDMKDswFRU8GkwHs=; h=Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Cky2BVTe8KD9vzLnUdMoMsD0y6FBMaEFOv9TN8sIYqX8BGaUBMpcUERzgyOidn3kN HMul+OwyW8dXvDH0OBNIC+sOp6h1yg2VnO8Mc8DIT+Myl2bAcSz8Q59hEhuAu8pSbs mfkqD0D2QTViQaVnvI47lCOryEM9JCjusn7w3gp5n9BQ2O5p7OIZboZkym4XaFOvPq UgcXa3woQKwVYZkkVKNLuenq8kX0Ylkc7BXfhbG23pBo5ZxKlHC/kVaQHNgrNNfBRa 5BJpoSTp4eUNTlzRZRWNL3Bvz43M/4Ma4uW0akVd8JRUtgszdDpyn9YyibAgTbiNtt 7NybjNz9KNfhQ== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2025 19:22:29 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] device property: Add scoped fwnode child node iterators Cc: =?utf-8?q?Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois_Lessard?= , "Wolfram Sang" , "Andy Shevchenko" , "Daniel Scally" , "Heikki Krogerus" , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Javier Carrasco" , , , To: "Sakari Ailus" From: "Danilo Krummrich" References: <20250902190443.3252-1-jefflessard3@gmail.com> <20250902190443.3252-2-jefflessard3@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: (Cc: Javier) On Wed Sep 3, 2025 at 3:18 PM CEST, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Do we really need the available variant? > > Please see > . > > 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 provid= e 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 distinc= tion? I.e. are you referring to the fact that of_fwnode_get_next_child_node() alw= ays calls of_get_next_available_child() and swnode has no device_is_available() callback and hence is always available? What about ACPI?