On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 5:04 PM Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Sounds good, I'll do this then. Bart
