Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:32:50 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Jan Dabros <jsd@semihalf.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/9] i2c: designware: Propagate firmware node
Message-ID: <ZNEAklbEI5wbjv7l@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20230725143023.86325-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20230725143023.86325-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <f0e0c31e-ad5e-c3ae-945e-c2af0d68beab@linux.intel.com>
 <ZMgU9Jm4u37D+70Y@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20230804205956.uuna4c76ww64z3zm@intel.intel>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230804205956.uuna4c76ww64z3zm@intel.intel>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 10:59:56PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:09:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 03:25:58PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> > > On 7/25/23 17:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > Propagate firmware node by using a specific API call, i.e. device_set_node().

...

> > > > +	device_set_node(&dev->adapter.dev, dev_fwnode(dev->dev));
> > > 
> > > Would this be better to put in the same place where ACPI_COMPANION_SET() is
> > > removed like below? I'd keep this static inline function in the header file
> > > as simple as possible. All extra code might invite adding even more.
> > 
> > We come again to the duplication and prone to deviation code, I wouldn't like
> > to go this way. The idea of this call is to unify and avoid mistakes, like
> > updating only in ACPI or DT (or any new one if happens in the future) case
> > and leaving the second one unconsidered.
> 
> it's anyway an inline function becoming a bit too fat. Can't we
> make it not inline?
> 
> > That said, I would rather drop this patch until i2c core will take this
> > once for all (may be never in the reasonable future :-).
> 
> Which patch are you referring to that should be taken into i2c
> core?

Something I tried to do in the past but failed.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-i2c/20211207162457.18450-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko