Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Simplify printks with pOF format

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 11:34:53AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 12/09/2025 11:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Print full device node name with %pOF format, so the code will be a bit
> > simpler.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c                | 13 ++++++-------
> >  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/transports/mailbox.c |  7 +++----
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> > index 24e59ddf85e7..c7698cfaa4e8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> > @@ -401,8 +401,8 @@ static void scmi_device_release(struct device *dev)
> >  
> >  static void __scmi_device_destroy(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev)
> >  {
> > -	pr_debug("(%s) Destroying SCMI device '%s' for protocol 0x%x (%s)\n",
> > -		 of_node_full_name(scmi_dev->dev.parent->of_node),
> > +	pr_debug("(%pOF) Destroying SCMI device '%s' for protocol 0x%x (%s)\n",
> > +		 scmi_dev->dev.parent->of_node,
> >  		 dev_name(&scmi_dev->dev), scmi_dev->protocol_id,
> >  		 scmi_dev->name);
> 
> Heh, I misread the docs and see now in the testing that my patch changes
> the behavior. of_node_full_name() is just node name. pOF is full path.
> 
> This might be desired or not...
> 

That should be fine. I am in the process of changing this but happy to
take this for now. We may have to move to fwnode as we are in process of
adding ACPI support for this. Not finalised yet so it may be a while before
I tinker with it again.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep