From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com
Cc: Kieran Bingham <kbingham@kernel.org>,
linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
sakari.ailus@iki.fi, niklas.soderlund@ragnatech.se,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@diasemi.com>,
John Youn <johnyoun@synopsys.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] device property: Add fwnode_graph_get_port_parent
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:42:07 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <11266116.VtDrNngWRY@avalon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d82a0b2-61e7-656c-7df5-17fcb599aa76@ideasonboard.com>
Hi Kieran,
On Friday 19 May 2017 14:34:33 Kieran Bingham wrote:
> On 18/05/17 14:36, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 May 2017 16:03:38 Kieran Bingham wrote:
> >> From: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> >>
> >> V4L2 async notifiers can pass the endpoint fwnode rather than the device
> >> fwnode.
> >
> > I'm not sure I would mention V4L2 in the commit message, as this is
> > generic.
>
> Good point
>
> >> Provide a helper to obtain the parent device fwnode without first
> >> parsing the remote-endpoint as per fwnode_graph_get_remote_port_parent.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> drivers/base/property.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> include/linux/property.h | 2 ++
> >> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/property.c b/drivers/base/property.c
> >> index 627ebc9b570d..caf4316fe565 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/base/property.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/base/property.c
> >> @@ -1245,6 +1245,31 @@ fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint(struct
> >> fwnode_handle
> >> *fwnode, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint);
> >>
> >> /**
> >>
> >> + * fwnode_graph_get_port_parent - Return device node of a port endpoint
> >> + * @fwnode: Endpoint firmware node pointing of the port
> >> + *
> >> + * Extracts firmware node of the device the @fwnode belongs to.
> >
> > I'm not too familiar with the fwnode API, but I know it's written in C,
> > where functions don't extract something but return a value :-) How about
> >
> > Return: the firmware node of the device the @endpoint belongs to.
>
> I'm not averse to the reword - but it is different to the other functions in
> the same context:
>
> fwnode_graph_get_remote_endpoint(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> * Extracts firmware node of a remote endpoint the @fwnode points to.
>
> struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_graph_get_remote_port(struct fwnode_handle
> *fwnode)
> * Extracts firmware node of a remote port the @fwnode points to.
>
> fwnode_graph_get_remote_port_parent(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> * Extracts firmware node of a remote device the @fwnode points to.
>
> Then with this function becoming:
>
> fwnode_graph_get_port_parent(struct fwnode_handle *endpoint)
> * Returns firmware node of the device the @endpoint belongs to.
>
>
> I guess those could be changed too ...
My point is that the kerneldoc format documents return values with a "Return:"
tag. The documentation for the function can still provide extra information.
> >> + */
> >> +struct fwnode_handle *
> >> +fwnode_graph_get_port_parent(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> >
> > This is akin to writing (unsigned int integer)
>
> Yes, good point there - I was thinking of the fwnode as an object itself,
> but really it's representing the endpoint, and the fwnode is the class type
> :)
>
> > How about calling the variable endpoint ? That would also make the
> > documentation clearer in my opinion, with "the @fwnode belongs to"
> > replaced with "the @endpoint belongs to".
>
> Agreed
>
> >> +{
> >> + struct fwnode_handle *parent = NULL;
> >> +
> >> + if (is_of_node(fwnode)) {
> >> + struct device_node *node;
> >> +
> >> + node = of_graph_get_port_parent(to_of_node(fwnode));
> >> + if (node)
> >> + parent = &node->fwnode;
> >
> > This part looks good to me, with the above small change,
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
>
> Thanks,
>
> I'll add this if the code doesn't change drastically based on Sakari's
> suggestion.
>
> >> + } else if (is_acpi_node(fwnode)) {
> >> + parent = acpi_node_get_parent(fwnode);
> >
> > I can't comment on this one though.
> >
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return parent;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fwnode_graph_get_port_parent);
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >>
> >> * fwnode_graph_get_remote_port_parent - Return fwnode of a remote
> >> device
> >> * @fwnode: Endpoint firmware node pointing to the remote endpoint
> >> *
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h
> >> index 2f482616a2f2..624129b86c82 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/property.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/property.h
> >> @@ -274,6 +274,8 @@ void *device_get_mac_address(struct device *dev, char
> >> *addr, int alen);
> >>
> >> struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint(
> >>
> >> struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, struct fwnode_handle *prev);
> >>
> >> +struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_graph_get_port_parent(
> >> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
> >>
> >> struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_graph_get_remote_port_parent(
> >>
> >> struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
> >>
> >> struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_graph_get_remote_port(
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-19 14:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.6800d0e1b9b578b82f68dec1b99b3a601d6e54ca.1495032810.git-series.kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
2017-05-17 15:03 ` [PATCH v1 1/3] of: base: Provide of_graph_get_port_parent() Kieran Bingham
2017-05-17 16:36 ` Rob Herring
2017-05-17 20:02 ` Kieran Bingham
2017-05-17 23:53 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2017-05-18 13:18 ` Laurent Pinchart
2017-05-17 15:03 ` [PATCH v1 2/3] device property: Add fwnode_graph_get_port_parent Kieran Bingham
2017-05-18 13:36 ` Laurent Pinchart
2017-05-19 13:34 ` Kieran Bingham
2017-05-19 14:42 ` Laurent Pinchart [this message]
2017-05-22 6:18 ` Sakari Ailus
2017-05-18 15:26 ` Sakari Ailus
2017-05-17 15:03 ` [PATCH v1 3/3] v4l: async: Match parent devices Kieran Bingham
2017-05-18 14:01 ` Laurent Pinchart
2017-05-22 16:11 ` Kieran Bingham
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=11266116.VtDrNngWRY@avalon \
--to=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=Adam.Thomson.Opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=johnyoun@synopsys.com \
--cc=kbingham@kernel.org \
--cc=kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=niklas.soderlund@ragnatech.se \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=sakari.ailus@iki.fi \
--cc=sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox