Hi Mika,

Thank you for the review.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:52:00PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 01:03:51PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:

quoted

 const struct fwnode_operations acpi_fwnode_ops = {
 	.property_present = acpi_fwnode_property_present,
 	.property_read_int_array = acpi_fwnode_property_read_int_array,

@@ -1193,4 +1248,9 @@ const struct fwnode_operations acpi_fwnode_ops = {
 	.get_parent = acpi_fwnode_get_parent,
 	.get_next_child_node = acpi_get_next_subnode,
 	.get_named_child_node = acpi_fwnode_get_named_child_node,
+	.graph_get_next_endpoint = acpi_fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint,
+	.graph_get_remote_endpoint = acpi_fwnode_graph_get_remote_endpoint,
+	.graph_get_remote_port = acpi_fwnode_graph_get_remote_port,
+	.graph_get_remote_port_parent = acpi_fwnode_graph_get_remote_port_parent,
+	.graph_parse_endpoint = acpi_fwnode_graph_parse_endpoint,
 };

Not sure if it is possible but it would be nice to have a single
primitive implementation specific graph callback and then build
everything else on top of that in generic code. Here you have 5
callbacks just for graph support.

Getting the parent of the port in OF graph is OF specific, the port parent
is not necessarily a direct parent node of the port (in presence of the
"ports" node that contains all port nodes).

I could potentially remove graph_get_remote_port() and use
graph_get_remote_endpoint() and graph_get_parent() instead. I didn't
originally do that as I thought it could be better ot leave it up to the
implementation.

What do you think?

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@iki.fi	XMPP: sailus@retiisi.org.uk