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