Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-68871-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:25:45 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	Sumera Priyadarsini <sylphrenadin@gmail.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops.
Message-ID: <Zc9-eSEH-D1n4dAv@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240211174237.182947-1-jic23@kernel.org>
 <ZcoJEUTdMAKdMHd1@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20240216144756.08e25894@jic23-huawei>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240216144756.08e25894@jic23-huawei>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 02:47:56PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:03:29 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 05:42:28PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:

..

> > I'm a bit skeptical about need of this work. What I would prefer to see
> > is getting rid of OF-centric drivers in IIO. With that, we would need
> > only fwnode part to be properly implemented.
> 
> To be honest main reason for doing of first was that they have unit tests :)

fwnode also has KUnit test. Have you considered adding test cases there?

> The IIO drivers were more of a proving ground than cases I really cared
> out cleaning up.  However I'm always of the view that better to make
> some improvement now than wait for a perfect improvement later.

Yes, but in my opinion _in this particular case_ it brings more churn and
some maybe even not good from educational purposes, i.e. one can look at
the current series and think "oh, OF is still in use, let me provide my
driver OF-only (for whatever reasons behind)", while targeting conversion
first will tell people: "hey, there is an agnostic device property framework
that should be used in a new code and that's why we have been converting old
drivers too".

> However one or two are not going to be converted to fwnode handling
> any time soon because they make use of phandle based referencing for
> driver specific hook ups that isn't going to get generic handling any
> time soon.

Sure, exceptions happen.

> I'll probably focus on getting the fwnode version of this moving
> forwards first though and 'maybe' convert a few of the easier ones
> of these over to that framework to reduce how many users of this
> we end up with in IIO.

Thanks!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko