Re: [PATCH v8 04/10] reset: eyeq5: add platform driver

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:28:42PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> On Do, 2024-02-29 at 15:48 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:18:08PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> > > On Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 12:22 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:04:47PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> > > > > On Tue Feb 27, 2024 at 6:27 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 03:55:25PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:

..

> > > > > > > +	priv->rcdev.of_node = np;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's better to use device_set_node().
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't see how device_set_node() can help? It works on struct device
> > > > > pointers. Here priv->rcdev is a reset_controller_dev struct. There are
> > > > > no users of device_set_node() in drivers/reset/.
> > > > 
> > > > No users doesn't mean it's good. The API is relatively "new" and takes
> > > > care of two things:
> > > > 1) it uses agnostic interface;
> > > > 2) it doesn't require any firmware node direct dereference.
> > > > 
> > > > The 2) is most important here as allows us to refactor (firmware node) code
> > > > in the future.
> > > 
> > > I think I get the point of device_set_node(). I still do not understand
> > > how it could help me fill the ->of_node field in a reset_controller_dev
> > > structure?
> > 
> > Exactly why I put the above comment as recommendation. And then I elaborated
> > that entire reset framework should rather move towards fwnode.
> 
> For context, there have been initial patches for this, that turned out
> not to be necessary later on:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220324141237.297207-1-clement.leger@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> At this point, there still is no real use case for non-DT reset
> controls on the horizon.

I can argue on that if we have something like reset-gpio (and we have a such).

With this in place the ACPI can also provide descriptions for that.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko