Re: [PATCH 04/11] net: phylink: switch to using fwnode_gpiod_get_index()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:10:16AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 02:55:11AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:49:29AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:46:19PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:39:14AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:25:14PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:52:08AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > > > Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, let's use
> > > > > > > the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), bit
> > > > > > > works with arbitrary firmware node.
> > > e > > 
> > > > > > I'm wondering if it's possible to step forward and replace
> > > > > > fwnode_get_gpiod_index by gpiod_get() / gpiod_get_index() here and
> > > > > > in other cases in this series.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, those require a struct device, but we have none.  There are network
> > > > > drivers where there is a struct device for the network complex, but only
> > > > > DT nodes for the individual network interfaces.  So no, gpiod_* really
> > > > > doesn't work.
> > > > 
> > > > In the following patch the node is derived from struct device. So, I believe
> > > > some cases can be handled differently.

> Referring back to my comment, notice that I said we have none for the
> phylink case, so it's not possible there.
> 
> I'm not sure why Andy replied the way he did, unless he mis-read my
> comment.

It is a first patch which does the change. Mostly my reply was to Dmitry and
your comment clarifies the case with this patch, thanks!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko