On Mon May 11, 2026 at 4:50 PM CEST, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 4:31 PM Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon May 11, 2026 at 4:17 PM CEST, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> > On Mon, 11 May 2026 16:00:23 +0200, Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]> >> > said: >> >> On Mon May 11, 2026 at 9:33 AM CEST, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> >>> Danilo: if there are no further comments, can you pick it up for v7.1? >> >> >> >> It seems that sashiko has a valid concern in [1]; can you confirm? >> >> >> >> [1] >> >> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260430-swnode-remove-on-dev-unreg-v4-0-01574da0aed3%40oss.qualcomm.com >> >> >> > >> > Yes, I explained it here[1]. Basically it's similar to how we need to call >> > platform_device_add_data() for devices created with >> > platform_device_alloc(). >> > >> > We can consider adding platform_device_add_software_node() once there's >> > a potential user but for now I'd just leave it like this. >> >> But there are users that already need this, no? There is Xe [1] and Surface >> GPE >> [2], or am I missing something? >> >> [1] >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.1-rc2/source/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_i2c.c#L99 >> [2] >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.1-rc2/source/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c#L308 > > Right, I was not aware of these. That could indeed cause a regression. > I'd like to fix the problem in v7.1 but also keep it minimal so adding > platform_device_add_software_node() and updating drivers to using it > may be the next step but for now: how about adding > platform_device_release_full() which would call > device_remove_software_node() and then the existing > platform_device_release()? We'd replace the .release callback of > struct device in platform_device_register_full() but if the user just > uses platform_device_alloc(), they would keep the regular .release() > that doesn't remove the software node? > > That would go into v7.1 and then I'd provide > platform_device_add_software_node(), use it in all drivers that need > it, and then we'd remove platform_device_release_full() and go back to > a single, unified release callback? > > Does it make sense?
If it is just those two (and at least I did not find any other drivers) it might be easier to just add platform_device_add_software_node(), use it within those two drivers and still land it for v7.1. I feel like this change turns out simpler and less error prone than the above workaround to keep changes local to the driver core.
