Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] media: i2c: rdacm2x: Make use of device properties

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 07:27:39PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 07:22:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 06:34:35PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 03:23:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 03:07:48PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 09:16:36AM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > > > > > Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2025-03-31 08:34:35)
> > > > > > > Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow
> > > > > > > it to be used on non-OF platforms.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Looks reasonable to me.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is that going to work out of the box though ? The calls below read the
> > > > > "reg" property to get the device I2C addresses. AFAIK, ACPI handles I2C
> > > > > addresses using ACPI-specific methods.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Andy, have you tested this patch on an ACPI system ?
> > > > 
> > > > Only compile-tested. But you are right, this is something different here
> > > > between OF and ACPI.
> > > > 
> > > > I can rephrase the commit message to just point out that fwnode.h shouldn't
> > > > be in the drivers and either converting to device property in an assumption
> > > > that later it can be easier to support non-OF cases, or using of.h.
> > > 
> > > I wasn't aware that fwnode.h shouldn't be used in drivers, could you
> > > explain that ?
> > 
> > The fwnode.h provides the data types and definitions that are meant
> > to be used by the fwnode / device property API providers. The leaf drivers
> > shouldn't have any business with those definitions. Everything the drivers
> > need should be provided via property.h. property.h guarantees the necessary
> > data types to be visible to the users, when required (mostly think of
> > struct fwnode_reference_args). Yes, I am aware of v4l2-fwnode.h and it seems
> > it falls into the category of special device property API provider.
> > 
> > > If this patch is part of an effort to eliminate usage of some APIs from
> > > all drivers, I'm fine with it. Otherwise, I'm not sure it's worth
> > > modifying the driver.
> > 
> > These drivers basically include the wrong header.
> > If you insist, I can patch fwnode.h to add a comment summarizing the above.
> 
> No, it's fine. I mixed fwnode.h and property.h when writing my previous
> reply, but I don't think it's a matter of lack of documentation, more
> likely lack of sleep :-)

NP. but here we are: 20250331163227.280501-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com

The bottom line, can you give a tag for this patch and perhaps others of
the same matter against drivers/media/* I sent today?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko