On Saturday, October 18, 2014 10:49:59 AM Grant Likely wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:50 +0200
, "Rafael J. Wysocki" [off-list ref]
 wrote:

quoted

On Friday, October 17, 2014 08:04:52 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On October 17, 2014 2:01:33 PM CEST, "Rafael J. Wysocki" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Everyone,

Hving had a couple of chats with Grant and Arnd during LinuxCon EU/LPC,
we
now have version 5 taking all feedback into account (hopefully).

Awesome, that was really fast. I'm currently on my way his me in
the train, replying from my phone, but it looks good now. I'll have a more
detailed look next week but I'm definitely happy to see this go in (to next
and 3.19) now, any details we still find can be fixed on top.

quoted

In
short, if
we are passed a struct fwnode_handle pointer, we can get from it to the
appropriate device node pointer (either struct acpi_device or struct
device_node)
using container_of() after we've checked the type.  This is needed for
the code
that needs to access child nodes of a device in case when they don't
have
struct device representations (whatever the reason).  This has been
suggested
by Grant and pretty much everyone involved agrees that it's better that
the
alternatives presented so far.

Yes, it's nice enough that I now take back all the objections I had for the
child accessory API.

Cool, thanks!

I've just refreshed the device-properties branch of the linux-pm.git tree
and it contains the current material now (including a couple of build
fixes reported by the autobuild robot in patches [02/12] and [09/12]).

My plan is to merge this into the linux-next branch when 3.18-rc1 is out.

Wait for my ack please, but I should be able to review it this weekend
or on Monday. I'm actually reviewing now, but I'm on a plane near the
end of the flight. As soon as I get on the ground SIGFAMILY will
interrupt me for a bit. :-)

Sure, I won't be trying to push things that you don't like :-)

Rafael