On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:44:41AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:

On Sun, 2015-10-18 at 20:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:37:57PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:29:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:50PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

I can't see adding calls like this all over the tree just to solve a
bus-specific problem, you are adding of_* calls where they aren't
needed, or wanted, at all.

quoted

quoted

This isn't bus specific, I'm not sure what makes you say that?

quoted

You are making it bus-specific by putting these calls all over the tree
in different bus subsystems semi-randomly for all I can determine.

Do you mean firmware rather than bus here?  I think that's the confusion
I have...

Certainly, if it literally is adding of_* calls then that would seem to
be gratuitously firmware-specific. Nothing should be using those these
days; any new code should be using the generic device property APIs
(except in special cases).

I asked Linus Walleij about that with the fwnode_get_named_gpiod() stuff,
and Linus didn't seem to know how this should be used.

It doesn't help that dev->fwnode is not initialised, but dev->of_node
is.  Are we supposed to grope around in dev->of_node for the embedded
fwnode instead of using dev->fwnode?

At the moment, at least to me, fwnode looks like some kind of
experimental half-baked thing rather than a real usable solution.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.