GPIO library now accepts fwnode as a firmware node, so
switch the module to use it.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
---
v3: no changes
drivers/of/unittest.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
index 7f6bba18c515..5a842dfc27e8 100644
--- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
+++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
@@ -1602,7 +1602,7 @@ static int unittest_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, devptr);
- devptr->chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
+ devptr->chip.fwnode = dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev);
devptr->chip.label = "of-unittest-gpio";
devptr->chip.base = -1; /* dynamic allocation */
devptr->chip.ngpio = 5;
@@ -1611,7 +1611,7 @@ static int unittest_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
ret = gpiochip_add_data(&devptr->chip, NULL);
unittest(!ret,
- "gpiochip_add_data() for node @%pOF failed, ret = %d\n", devptr->chip.of_node, ret);
+ "gpiochip_add_data() for node @%pfw failed, ret = %d\n", devptr->chip.fwnode, ret);
if (!ret)
unittest_gpio_probe_pass_count++;
--
2.35.1
On the ->remove() stage the callback uses physical device node instead of one
from GPIO chip and the variable name which is different to one used in
unittest_gpio_probe(). Make these consistent with unittest_gpio_probe().
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
---
v3: new patch
drivers/of/unittest.c | 13 ++++++-------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
index 5a842dfc27e8..eafa8ffefbd0 100644
--- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
+++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
@@ -1620,20 +1620,19 @@ static int unittest_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
static int unittest_gpio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
- struct unittest_gpio_dev *gdev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+ struct unittest_gpio_dev *devptr = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
- struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
- dev_dbg(dev, "%s for node @%pOF\n", __func__, np);
+ dev_dbg(dev, "%s for node @%pfw\n", __func__, devptr->chip.fwnode);
- if (!gdev)
+ if (!devptr)
return -EINVAL;
- if (gdev->chip.base != -1)
- gpiochip_remove(&gdev->chip);
+ if (devptr->chip.base != -1)
+ gpiochip_remove(&devptr->chip);
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
- kfree(gdev);
+ kfree(devptr);
return 0;
}
--
2.35.1
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 1:50 PM Andy Shevchenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> GPIO library now accepts fwnode as a firmware node, so
> switch the module to use it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> ---
> v3: no changes
> drivers/of/unittest.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> index 7f6bba18c515..5a842dfc27e8 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> @@ -1602,7 +1602,7 @@ static int unittest_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, devptr);
>
> - devptr->chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> + devptr->chip.fwnode = dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev);
> devptr->chip.label = "of-unittest-gpio";
> devptr->chip.base = -1; /* dynamic allocation */
> devptr->chip.ngpio = 5;
> @@ -1611,7 +1611,7 @@ static int unittest_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> ret = gpiochip_add_data(&devptr->chip, NULL);
>
> unittest(!ret,
> - "gpiochip_add_data() for node @%pOF failed, ret = %d\n", devptr->chip.of_node, ret);
> + "gpiochip_add_data() for node @%pfw failed, ret = %d\n", devptr->chip.fwnode, ret);
>
> if (!ret)
> unittest_gpio_probe_pass_count++;
> --
> 2.35.1
>
Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 02:50:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> GPIO library now accepts fwnode as a firmware node, so
> switch the module to use it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> ---
> v3: no changes
> drivers/of/unittest.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> index 7f6bba18c515..5a842dfc27e8 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> @@ -1602,7 +1602,7 @@ static int unittest_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, devptr);
>
> - devptr->chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> + devptr->chip.fwnode = dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev);
Perhaps I want the DT test code to test using the of_node pointer. We do
want that to work, right?
I'm really not a fan of fwnode'ifying things that are DT only. It's
really pointless churn.
Rob
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 6:29 PM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 02:50:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > GPIO library now accepts fwnode as a firmware node, so
> > switch the module to use it.
...
> > - devptr->chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > + devptr->chip.fwnode = dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev);
>
> Perhaps I want the DT test code to test using the of_node pointer. We do
> want that to work, right?
Nope. We want to get rid of of_node in GPIO.
> I'm really not a fan of fwnode'ifying things that are DT only. It's
> really pointless churn.
Other way around, keeping an of_node for just 3 drivers (and counting
down) + one test case is pointless churn.
But I got that commit message that is unclear about the intentions
behind. I will update that if you agree on the rest.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:03 PM Andy Shevchenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 6:29 PM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 02:50:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > GPIO library now accepts fwnode as a firmware node, so
> > > switch the module to use it.
>
> ...
>
> > > - devptr->chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > > + devptr->chip.fwnode = dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev);
> >
> > Perhaps I want the DT test code to test using the of_node pointer. We do
> > want that to work, right?
>
> Nope. We want to get rid of of_node in GPIO.
I would think there's old PPC users preventing that, but if not, good job.
> > I'm really not a fan of fwnode'ifying things that are DT only. It's
> > really pointless churn.
>
> Other way around, keeping an of_node for just 3 drivers (and counting
> down) + one test case is pointless churn.
>
> But I got that commit message that is unclear about the intentions
> behind. I will update that if you agree on the rest.
If it is going away, then what choice do I have. :)
Rob
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:34 PM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:03 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 6:29 PM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 02:50:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > GPIO library now accepts fwnode as a firmware node, so
> > > > switch the module to use it.
...
> > > > - devptr->chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > > > + devptr->chip.fwnode = dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev);
> > >
> > > Perhaps I want the DT test code to test using the of_node pointer. We do
> > > want that to work, right?
> >
> > Nope. We want to get rid of of_node in GPIO.
>
> I would think there's old PPC users preventing that, but if not, good job.
Recently applied by respective maintainer, so no more PPC GPIO using OF node.
> > > I'm really not a fan of fwnode'ifying things that are DT only. It's
> > > really pointless churn.
> >
> > Other way around, keeping an of_node for just 3 drivers (and counting
> > down) + one test case is pointless churn.
> >
> > But I got that commit message that is unclear about the intentions
> > behind. I will update that if you agree on the rest.
>
> If it is going away, then what choice do I have. :)
Yep, that is the idea.
I interpret this as "go ahead with a better commit message and I will Ack it"!
Thanks, Rob, for your review!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko