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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210708224226.457224-1-djrscally@gmail.com> <20210709170426.GC4112@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAHp75VeugcuwWAq5p_rx+8J2FsX7igV+UJ3QKw3XG6BiDqTtNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210712124223.GB4435@sirena.org.uk> <CAHp75VeyNyYSbTMgS+5tXxOZehfxt6Wws9jScKYRKQhRRGDwsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210712133428.GD4435@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20210712133428.GD4435@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:08:23 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcQUUDdLYbpvTXSMPvjBzbHtBxywVBPS_xfY5JXyo9XxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add software node support to regulator framework
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 4:35 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 04:01:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> > The software nodes shouldn't appear on its own in the generic code.
> > When we use software nodes API in it, it means that we have tried
> > other providers _explicitly_ and haven't found what we are looking for
> > and hence we have to check if software nodes are providing the same.
> > For example, here it's done that way:
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.14-rc1/source/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c#L178.
>
> > In all other cases it shouldn't be called explicitly.
>
> But why?  I'm not seeing the advantage over providing platform data
> based on DMI quirks here, it seems like a bunch of work for no reason.

What do you mean by additional work? It's exactly opposite since most
of the drivers in the kernel are using the fwnode interface rather
than platform data. Why should we _add_ the specific platform data
handling code in the certain drivers instead of not touching them at
all?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko