From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
marek.vasut@gmail.com,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 0/4] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops.
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 16:39:42 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240301223942.GA3179769-robh@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240225142714.286440-1-jic23@kernel.org>
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 02:27:10PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
>
> Some discussion occured on previous posting.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240223124432.26443-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com/
>
> Summary:
> * fwnode conversions should be considered when applying this
> infrastructure to a driver. Perhaps better to move directly to
> the generic FW property handling rather than improve existing
> of specific code.
> * There are lots of potential places to use this based on detections
> from Julia's coccinelle scripts linked below.
>
> The equivalent device_for_each_child_node_scoped() series for
> fwnode will be queued up in IIO for the merge window shortly as
> it has gathered sufficient tags. Hopefully the precdent set there
> for the approach will reassure people that instantiating the
> child variable inside the macro definition is the best approach.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240217164249.921878-1-jic23@kernel.org/
>
> v2: Andy suggested most of the original converted set should move to
> generic fwnode / property.h handling. Within IIO that was
> a reasonable observation given we've been trying to move away from
> firmware specific handling for some time. Patches making that change
> to appropriate drivers posted.
> As we discussed there are cases which are not suitable for such
> conversion and this infrastructure still provides clear benefits
> for them.
>
> Ideally it would be good if this introductory series adding the
> infrastructure makes the 6.9 merge window. There are no dependencies
> on work queued in the IIO tree, so this can go via devicetree
> if the maintainers would prefer. I've had some off list messages
> asking when this would be merged, as there is interest in building
> on it next cycle for other parts of the kernel (where conversion to
> fwnode handling may be less appropriate).
I'll let you take it. For the series:
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
I've got some drivers/of/ conversions too, but they are probably next
cycle at this point.
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-01 22:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-25 14:27 [RESEND PATCH v2 0/4] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops Jonathan Cameron
2024-02-25 14:27 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 1/4] of: Add cleanup.h based auto release via __free(device_node) markings Jonathan Cameron
2024-02-25 14:27 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 2/4] of: Introduce for_each_*_child_of_node_scoped() to automate of_node_put() handling Jonathan Cameron
2024-02-25 14:27 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 3/4] of: unittest: Use for_each_child_of_node_scoped() Jonathan Cameron
2024-02-25 14:27 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 4/4] iio: adc: rcar-gyroadc: use for_each_available_child_node_scoped() Jonathan Cameron
2024-03-25 19:53 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-03-01 22:39 ` Rob Herring [this message]
2024-03-03 11:56 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 0/4] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops Jonathan Cameron
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=20240301223942.GA3179769-robh@kernel.org \
--to=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=Julia.Lawall@inria.fr \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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