Re: [PATCH net-next v1 0/5] net: mdiobus: HIde ACPI implementation

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

On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 05:16:57PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 04:49:35PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 03:02:54PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 09:29:51AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > This mini-series is dedicated to hiding ACPI implementation details
> > > > from the wider users as they (as of today) do not need to know that.
> > > 
> > > Please could you expand on that. ACPI != OF. They have different
> > > bindings, so you need different implementations.
> > 
> > As of today the users that want ACPI also have the OF support. Even without
> > that if the device is pure ACPI supported one (and somehow never going to DT)
> > the proposed API (see the first patch) will be no-op in case when CONFIG_ACPI=n
> > or when it's a non-ACPI platform with no support of the device. Hence, the
> > pure ACPI (and actually OF as well) do not need to be exposed. The decision is
> > made based on the type of firmware node.
> 
> I see two different things here:
> 
> You are refactoring code into a helper, so reducing the amount of
> duplicated code. That in itself is good.
> 
> However, we have the problem in general that developers think that OF
> and ACPI do the same thing. And that is not true. OF MDIO busses have
> support for a GPIO used as a reset. In retrospect, that was a bad
> idea. The documented ACPI binding does not have this, and if anybody
> was to suggest adding it, i want to NACK it.
> 
> Having OF code and ACPI code to instantiate the MDIO bus makes it
> clearer they are different things. fwnode gives the impression they
> are the same, which is not true. Hence i don't like fwnode at this
> level.
> 
> Where fwnode makes sense is deeper down in the implementation of the
> bindings, for properties which are the same in both bindings.  Then
> you can use fwnode_ for the shared properties, of_ for the OF only
> properties, and acpi_ for the ACPI only properties.
> 
> So although i like the reduction in duplicated code, i think overall
> it makes the code worse because developers are more likely to wrongly
> understand it.

OK.
Thanks for review.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko