Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-164116-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:13:14 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@linux.dev>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@quicinc.com>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
	David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [v1,1/3] drm/panel: ili9341: Correct use of device property APIs
Message-ID: <ZjD8eoO3TmuCUj-a@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240425142706.2440113-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <c2d41916-0b6c-43b5-98eb-514eb0511f84@linux.dev>
 <ce6a480d-80b3-46b0-a32d-26bc6480d02f@linux.dev>
 <ZiqrLfezhns4UycR@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <b5ffd984-4031-4a8a-adbc-75a1e1dfe765@linux.dev>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b5ffd984-4031-4a8a-adbc-75a1e1dfe765@linux.dev>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 05:13:43AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> On 2024/4/26 03:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 02:53:22AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > On 2024/4/26 02:08, Sui Jingfeng wrote:

..

> > Are you speaking to yourself? I'm totally lost.
> > 
> > Please, if you want to give a constructive feedback, try to understand
> > the topic from different aspects and then clearly express it.
> 
> OK,
> 
> The previous email analysis the non-DT cases exhaustively, this email intend to
> demonstrate the more frequently use case.
> 
> That is, in the *DT('OF')* based systems,
> device_get_match_data() is completely equivalent to
> of_device_get_match_data().

> So the net results of applying this patch are "no gains and no lost".

This is not true. It's only part of the cases, i.e. DT. So, I assume you meant

  "So the net results of applying this patch are "no gains and no lost" in DT case".

> Things will become clear if we divide the whole problem into two cases(DT and non-DT)
> to discuss, that's it. That's all I can tell.

Not really. non-DT cases can also be divided to "fwnode backed or not", and
the former might be subdivided to "is it swnode backed or real fwnode one?"

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko