Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] property: Add device_get_child_node_count_named()

Matti Vaittinen
2025-02-26T14:04:08Z

On 25/02/2025 15:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 03:29:17PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> On 25/02/2025 12:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 12:29:31PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2025 12:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not check how many users are you proposing for this, but if
>>>>>> there's only one, then IMO this should not be a global function yet.
>>>>>> It just feels to special case to me. But let's see what the others
>>>>>> think.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that if somebody hides it, we might potentially see
>>>>> a duplication in the future. So I _slightly_ prefer to publish and
>>>>> then drop that after a few cycles if no users appear.
>>>>
>>>> After taking a very quick grep I spotted one other existing place where we
>>>> might be able to do direct conversion to use this function.
>>>>
>>>> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
>>>>
>>>> That'd be 2 users.
>>>
>>> I haven't checked myself, I believe your judgement,
>>
>> I took a better look and you obviously shouldn't believe :) The gianfar used
>> of_node instead of the fwnode. So, it'd be a single caller at starters.
>
> ...which is the same as dev_of_node(), which means that you can use your
> function there.

I'm unsure what you mean. The proposed function
device_get_child_node_count_named() takes device pointer. I don't see
how dev_of_node() helps converting node to device?

I think I could actually kill the whole gfar_of_group_count() function
and replace it with a direct call to the
device_get_child_node_count_named() - but I am not at all convinced
that'd be worth including the property.h to a file which is currently
using only of_* -stuff. Well, I suppose it can be asked from netdev
peeps but I am not convinced they see it as a great idea.

If I misunderstood your meaning - please elaborate.

Yours,
-- Matti