On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:44 AM, David Woodhouse [off-list ref] 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).

See version 2 of the series[1] which did that. It became obvious that
was pointless because the call paths ended up looking like this:

Generic subsystem code -> DT look-up code -> fwnode_probe_device ->
of_probe_device

Rob

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/361137.html