On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 9:06 AM Matti Vaittinen
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 27/02/2025 16:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:01:49AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

quoted

On 26/02/2025 16:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 04:04:02PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

quoted

On 25/02/2025 15:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 03:29:17PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

quoted

On 25/02/2025 12:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 12:29:31PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

quoted

On 25/02/2025 12:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

I did not check how many users are you proposing for this, but if
there's only one, then IMO this should not be a global function yet.
It just feels to special case to me. But let's see what the others
think.

The problem is that if somebody hides it, we might potentially see
a duplication in the future. So I _slightly_ prefer to publish and
then drop that after a few cycles if no users appear.

After taking a very quick grep I spotted one other existing place where we
might be able to do direct conversion to use this function.

drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c

That'd be 2 users.

I haven't checked myself, I believe your judgement,

I took a better look and you obviously shouldn't believe :) The gianfar used
of_node instead of the fwnode. So, it'd be a single caller at starters.

...which is the same as dev_of_node(), which means that you can use your
function there.

I'm unsure what you mean. The proposed function
device_get_child_node_count_named() takes device pointer. I don't see how
dev_of_node() helps converting node to device?

dev_of_node() takes the device pointer and dev_fwnode() takes that as well,
it means that there is no difference which one to use OF-centric or fwnode

The proposed device_get_child_node_count_named() takes a device pointer. I
don't see how dev_of_node() helps if there is just of_node and no device
pointer available in the calling code.

???

The loops are working on

      struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.np;

which is the equivalent to

      struct device_node *np = dev_of_node(&pdev->dev);

which takes device pointer.

quoted

(Well, as I wrote below, I could
alter the gianfar code by dropping the gfar_of_group_count(), so that I have
the device pointer in caller). Anyways, I don't see how dev_of_node() should
help unless you're proposing I add a of_get_child_node_count_named() or
somesuch - which I don't think makes sense.

Are you forbidding yourself to change the function prototype to take a device
pointer instead of device_node one? :-)

This is our point of misunderstanding. As I wrote, and as you can see
from the prototype, the function _is_ taking the device pointer. Hence I
didn't understand how dev_of_node() should help us.

quoted

quoted

quoted

API in this particular case. Just make sure that the function (and there
is also a second loop AFAICS) takes struct device *dev instead of struct
device_node *np as a parameter.

I think I lost the track here :)

Make gfar_of_group_count() to take device pointer. As simple as that.

that'd just make the gfar_of_group_count() a wrapper of the
of_get_child_node_count_named(). I prefer killing whole
gfar_of_group_count().

Sigh. This is not that hard.

- unsigned int num_grps = gfar_of_group_count(np);
+ unsigned int num_grps =
device_get_child_node_count_named(&ofdev->dev, "queue-groups");

And remove gfar_of_group_count() of course.

Rob