On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:10:16AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 02:55:11AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:49:29AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:46:19PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:39:14AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux > > > > admin wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:25:14PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:52:08AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > > > Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, > > > > > > > let's use > > > > > > > the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), > > > > > > > bit > > > > > > > works with arbitrary firmware node. > > > e > > > > > > > > I'm wondering if it's possible to step forward and replace > > > > > > fwnode_get_gpiod_index by gpiod_get() / gpiod_get_index() here and > > > > > > in other cases in this series. > > > > > > > > > > No, those require a struct device, but we have none. There are > > > > > network > > > > > drivers where there is a struct device for the network complex, but > > > > > only > > > > > DT nodes for the individual network interfaces. So no, gpiod_* really > > > > > doesn't work. > > > > > > > > In the following patch the node is derived from struct device. So, I > > > > believe > > > > some cases can be handled differently.
> Referring back to my comment, notice that I said we have none for the > phylink case, so it's not possible there. > > I'm not sure why Andy replied the way he did, unless he mis-read my > comment. It is a first patch which does the change. Mostly my reply was to Dmitry and your comment clarifies the case with this patch, thanks! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
