Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 7/9] ipu3-cio2: Check if pci_dev->dev's fwnode is a
 software_node in cio2_parse_firmware() and set FWNODE_GRAPH_DEVICE_DISABLED
 if so
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        linux.walleij@linaro.org, prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com,
        heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com,
        kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org,
        robh@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk,
        sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        pmladek@suse.com, mchehab@kernel.org, tian.shu.qiu@intel.com,
        bingbu.cao@intel.com, yong.zhi@intel.com, rafael@kernel.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kitakar@gmail.com,
        dan.carpenter@oracle.org
References: <20201019225903.14276-1-djrscally@gmail.com>
 <20201019225903.14276-8-djrscally@gmail.com>
 <20201020091958.GC4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20201020120615.GV13341@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
From:   Dan Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <32bbb4db-17d7-b9d1-950f-8f29d67539c3@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:56:07 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201020120615.GV13341@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

Hi Sakari

On 20/10/2020 13:06, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:19:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:59:01PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:
>>> fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id() will optionally parse enabled devices
>>> only; that status being determined through the .device_is_available() op
>>> of the device's fwnode. As software_nodes don't have that operation and
>>> adding it is meaningless, we instead need to check if the device's fwnode
>>> is a software_node and if so pass the appropriate flag to disable that
>>> check
>> Period.
>>
>> I'm wondering if actually this can be hidden in fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id().
> The device availability test is actually there for a reason. Some firmware
> implementations put all the potential devices in the tables and only one
> (of some) of them are available.
>
> Could this be implemented so that if the node is a software node, then get
> its parent and then see if that is available?
>
> I guess that could be implemented in software node ops. Any opinions?
Actually when considering the cio2 device, it seems that
set_secondary_fwnode() actually overwrites the _primary_, given
fwnode_is_primary(dev->fwnode) returns false. So in at least some cases,
this wouldn't work.