Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: ucb1x00: Register software node for GPIO controller

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2026, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 03:00:27PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jul 2026, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026, at 14:40, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 07 Jul 2026, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2026, at 07:01, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > >> > Define a static software node for the UCB1x00 GPIO controller and attach
> > > >> > it to the core MFD device in ucb1x00_probe(). This node will also be
> > > >> > used by the created GPIO chip.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This allows machine subdrivers (such as Assabet evaluation board
> > > >> > support) to reference the UCB1x00 GPIO controller in property entries
> > > >> > when converting legacy platform data to software nodes, resolving pin
> > > >> > bindings directly via the attached firmware node without relying on
> > > >> > name matching.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Assisted-by: Antigravity:gemini-3.5-flash
> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> 
> > > >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >> 
> > > >> Assabet should be going away soon, so it really doesn't
> > > >> matter much.
> > > 
> > > >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ucb1x00_gpiochip_node);
> > > >> 
> > > >> It does feel a bit counterproductive if you have to add more
> > > >> exported symbols.
> 
> Just FTR: I completely agree. However Bartosz is dead set on not
> supporting weaker references based on name matching and wants only
> identity matching. So we export bunch of stuff and pay for this with 
> tighter coupling and potential changes in load order.
> 
> > >  
> > > >> No need for the seperate declaration of the struct tag,
> > > >> you only need this if the first user is in the argument
> > > >> list of a function, but not for a global variable.
> > > >
> > > > Are you planning on fixing these review comments, Dmitry?
> > > 
> > > Just to clarify, I was not asking for anything to be changed
> > > in this patch, just observing. I'm fine with this version
> > > getting applied as-is. As I said, the file is probably
> > > going away soon, so let's just make sure it's not getting
> > > in the way until then.
> > 
> > The 2 comments above sure look like review comments.
> > 
> 
> Well, if this all truly goes away in 7.4 there is no much point in
> polishing this.

You can have the creds anyway!

-- 
Lee Jones