From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>,
Prajna Rajendra Kumar <prajna.rajendrakumar@microchip.com>,
linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] spi: microchip-core: Make use of device properties
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 18:27:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aScqY4s5EFgvw_5g@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <72130514-d9a6-4cbe-ae7e-7e23abc95286@sirena.org.uk>
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 12:03:40PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 08:35:10AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:19:22PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > I really don't think it's a good idea to just do it as a thoughtless
> > > default given that there are cases where we actively want a different
> > > interface on ACPI or don't want to see a device used at all.
>
> > Okay,I think the commit message is a bit misleading. There are two ideas behind
> > this change, one is to have agnostic APIs in use, second one to make code
> > shorter and cleaner. Assuming we are targeting the second one as a main point,
> > does this make sense?
> I'm still a bit dubious TBH, I didn't spot anything super obvious in the
> patch and there's the whole should you actually use anything other than
> DT question still.
The only helpful API which has no par on DT side is matching strings.
Otherwise it's only about shorten lines and less LoCs.
> It'd seem better to make the OF APIs better if
> there's some big win there.
I dropped it in v2. Can that be applied instead?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-26 16:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-25 20:15 [PATCH v1 0/7] spi: microchip-core: Code improvements Andy Shevchenko
2025-11-25 20:15 ` [PATCH v1 1/7] spi: microchip-core: use min() instead of min_t() Andy Shevchenko
2025-11-25 20:15 ` [PATCH v1 2/7] spi: microchip-core: Make use of device properties Andy Shevchenko
2025-11-25 22:42 ` Mark Brown
2025-11-25 23:00 ` Conor Dooley
2025-11-25 23:19 ` Mark Brown
2025-11-26 6:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-11-26 12:03 ` Mark Brown
2025-11-26 16:27 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2025-11-26 17:24 ` Mark Brown
2025-11-26 17:29 ` Conor Dooley
2025-11-26 17:45 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-11-25 20:15 ` [PATCH v1 3/7] spi: microchip-core: Refactor FIFO read and write handlers Andy Shevchenko
2025-11-25 20:15 ` [PATCH v1 4/7] spi: microchip-core: Replace dead code (-ENOMEM error message) Andy Shevchenko
2025-11-25 20:15 ` [PATCH v1 5/7] spi: microchip-core: Utilise temporary variable for struct device Andy Shevchenko
2025-11-25 20:15 ` [PATCH v1 6/7] spi: microchip-core: Use SPI_MODE_X_MASK Andy Shevchenko
2025-11-25 20:15 ` [PATCH v1 7/7] spi: microchip-core: Remove unneeded PM related macro Andy Shevchenko
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=aScqY4s5EFgvw_5g@smile.fi.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=conor@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=prajna.rajendrakumar@microchip.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