Re: [RFC 0/4] platform/x86: i2c-multi-instantiate: Pass ACPI fwnode to instantiated i2c-clients

[Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On 11/10/20 11:10 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:33 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/5/20 11:38 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:00 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> But before coming to the conclusion that i2c-multi-instantiate
>>>> would not work I had already written this series. Since this might
>>>> be useful for some other case in the future I'm sending this out
>>>> as a RFC now, mostly so that it gets added to the archives.
>>>
>>> I think they are in pretty good shape (only the 4th required a bit of
>>> attention).
>>
>> FWIW I agree with the changes which you suggest for the 4th patch.
>>
>>> Please, send as non-RFC and also Cc Heikki (just in case if he has
>>> comments wrt INT3515).
>>
>> But do we really want to land these changes, while ATM we do not
>> really have any need for them ?  Esp. the
>>
>> "platform/x86: i2c-multi-instantiate: Pass ACPI fwnode to instantiated I2C-clients"
>>
>> Change is not without a chance of regressions. The acpi_device_is_first_physical_node()
>> behavior surprised me a bit while working on the BOSC0200 changes. So I'm not
>> 100% sure I have managed to see / think of all implications of this change.
> 
> I think in general the direction to switch to fwnode is a good one. I
> was thinking about moving i2c core to use swnodes in which case they
> will utilize fwnode pointer. But it might have complications, you are
> right.

So do you agree to just keep this series in the archives (in case we need
it later) for now ? Or would you still like me to post a non RFC version ?

Regards,

Hans