On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 10:04:52AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

+static inline
+struct fwnode_handle *irq_domain_alloc_named_fwnode_parent(const char *name,
+							   struct fwnode_handle *parent)  

The name of this makes me think it's allocating the named fwnode parent, rather that
the named fwnode + setting it's parent.

There aren't all that many calls to irq_domain_named_fwnode(), maybe to avoid challenge
of a new name, just add the parameter to all of them? (25ish)  Mind you the current
pattern for similar cases is a helper, so maybe not.  

Similar cases ? Have you got anything specific I can look into ?

I meant all the different irq_domain_alloc_xxxxx variants that call
__irq_domain_alloc_fwnode() with a subset of parameters set to NULL.

That seems to say there is a precedence for making the presence of the parameter
part of the name rather than requiring callers to set the ones they don't want to
NULL.  So it argues for a helper like this one just for consistency.

quoted

quoted

Or go with something similar to named and have

irq_domain_alloc_named_parented_fwnode()?  

Right, given that Thomas is fine with it, I will go with this suggestion then
albeit it is getting a bit cumbersome (_named_id_parented_fwnode..), it should
be fine and I can rework the code to add a parent field to the existing interface
later if we feel it is nicer.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

quoted

Or I can add a set_parent() helper (though that's a bit of churn IMO) ?

If Thomas has a preference I will follow that, all of the above is doable
for me.

Agreed. Let's see what Thomas prefers (i.e. make the decision his problem ;)

Jonathan

quoted

quoted

I'm not that bothered though if you think the current naming is the best we can do.  

I think you have a point - as per my comment above.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

quoted

Jonathan
  

quoted

+{
+	return __irq_domain_alloc_fwnode(IRQCHIP_FWNODE_NAMED, 0, name, NULL, parent);
 }