From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.13]) (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 06F4C2E3EB for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:07:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708344423; cv=none; b=sz4tLCHTlaakBeA6qzUMSGLwOj3c3Ag1/yPODe0Xavqi2ggrLJzqWFso+VYFevXwhVELSnFqYubRruTTz3xh2hgxje55E9bqOgue1nWnustxBvSOWvaRGa6R45/fOWFSiUsCetucDUEsBV4PlmX8xL+civq7wkbZIWV9cHPcoss= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708344423; c=relaxed/simple; bh=g70a9KB39pH13Ohm2nVBfBMk77dBFtA7RZBVrFL5KZg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=m5A5SwfbYXihLR6Bj96JayJpcpFENMcKG8p17iRZh9U0dGpyLSaXTb2VxW2jwbQHd+C6JuWHXPUAv6XtjdcMj6V5QFJAe+5vQeUIV3DroD4CvkKlECzy5SERTQ/5sDtZLJygVSqVKgsnq2xXfgbWCp1mVR1ulRV2bv3PcH4UvNE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=RqT4G+Wv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="RqT4G+Wv" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1708344422; x=1739880422; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=g70a9KB39pH13Ohm2nVBfBMk77dBFtA7RZBVrFL5KZg=; b=RqT4G+WvrW1/ftaUukuje2ccH096QQsiOD5hOwPe+ukle43LJg1A4pwL YgP/zT1WQxdozbfpe9AVeduDJAYX7kw2hv3D7OBEmGwMnS9yqxhyYkvJ/ 8jOB/dKWxt0os7jg24kqxEIOkumkHoyFeW/VOMRD46Zv7BMyzXJpDJwGL p14pTD4GVP4+RYFtxdamaxKUW8qqNbtihh6VEElYR7QPBjbpa0/73T17I vVRZ903W/TxTzjW1EXSOBjoBhkQYlu9CqUCagRVT66D4FwKm/556/Li8Z Z6NDOYEsdN9ZDCXEqtpbgDLvJXlNJElyPRiDYET4JcvA1Ele2xXsbC3ON w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10988"; a="5381135" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,170,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="5381135" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmvoesa107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Feb 2024 04:07:01 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10988"; a="912864301" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,170,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="912864301" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Feb 2024 04:06:58 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rc2QB-00000005oZ5-0Qxh; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:06:55 +0200 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:06:54 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen , Michael Hennerich , Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , Alisa-Dariana Roman , Haibo Chen , Sean Nyekjaer , Andreas Klinger , Jonathan Cameron Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] IIO: Convert DT specific handling over to fwnode Message-ID: References: <20240218172731.1023367-1-jic23@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240218172731.1023367-1-jic23@kernel.org> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 05:27:23PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > From: Jonathan Cameron > > Andy pointed out that some of the drivers I was using as examples for > "[PATCH 0/8] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops." > should be converted over to fwnode / property.h based handling anyway > at which point the device_for_each_child_node_scoped() handler could be > used instead. He correctly observed that it made more sense to make this > transition directly than to improve the device tree specific handling. > > So this series does that and also some of the other drivers that were still > using device tree specific handling. Note the rcar-adc remains DT > specific due to it directly handling maching against of_device_id tables. > It probably doesn't make sense to move that custom handling over to > fwnode. > > I included one devm_ cleanup patch in here as I was touching the > driver anyway. > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko Thank you! I have some minor comments, but in general I like this series, Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko