Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-144436-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:06:50 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
	Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	kernel-team@android.com, Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, imx@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] of: dynamic: Fix overlayed devices not probing
 because of fw_devlink
Message-ID: <Zhx9qqiymJdXwYQs@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
References: <20240411235623.1260061-1-saravanak@google.com>
 <20240411235623.1260061-3-saravanak@google.com>
 <CAL_JsqKRVVNzgQk6PETfJ9RrDuzT1CTjHWW02Twc_T4C82t__Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="w8x69Pci+HaC+o9L"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqKRVVNzgQk6PETfJ9RrDuzT1CTjHWW02Twc_T4C82t__Q@mail.gmail.com>


--w8x69Pci+HaC+o9L
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 07:54:32AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 6:56=E2=80=AFPM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google=
=2Ecom> wrote:

> > +#define get_dev_from_fwnode(fwnode)    get_device((fwnode)->dev)

> I think it is better to not have this wrapper. We want it to be clear
> when we're acquiring a ref. I know get_device() does that, but I have
> to look up what get_dev_from_fwnode() does exactly.

Or perhaps calling it get_device_from_fwnode() would make it more
obvious that it is a get_device() variant?

--w8x69Pci+HaC+o9L
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmYcfaAACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CojAgAgt2fCimmNYhJQqDqfhM2bmWL/w9vqvYjQe8HGvckNhSuz23yy6xPb/bE
q9dDK6V1xzGLIMriwY4TgiSXPLVdmp4gORRq3/zEsaSIMDbBzgVuMnxFghARPVwT
8sjCvifFv9N5yOCMHbYhMteie92AzIWo9yrxq10KgKzX/4HURrT1G8n1zu3jOglG
2OjGQTHa5LeyE+5RdfaUMwE1JhchXojQe7tWE+tK1lqb5Tk4x1sKmCJG9BkZqE6k
0x5U+V1i77GpyUhFNbkFBFV1ROZ+oeBnIkd311q9Y8vOF3ecYFA0pe4hr3/6ceyo
cxfTAKuaqYZknFMwFcvvgiKIHuRFDA==
=+cQa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--w8x69Pci+HaC+o9L--