From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heikki Krogerus Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] device property: Introducing software nodes Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:40:50 +0300 Message-ID: <20181016084050.GF24771@kuha.fi.intel.com> References: <20181012113934.29942-1-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linus Walleij , Dmitry Torokhov , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andy Shevchenko , Mika Westerberg , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:36:33AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:35 AM Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 1:39 PM Heikki Krogerus > > wrote: > > > > > To continue the discussion started by Dmitry [1], this is my proposal > > > that I mentioned in my last mail. In short, the idea is that instead > > > of trying to extend the support for the currently used struct > > > property_set, I'm proposing that we introduce a completely new, > > > independent type of fwnode, and replace the struct property_set with > > > it. I'm calling the type "software node" here. > > > > I'm a big fan of this approach. > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij > > for all patches. > > > > I don't know who can finally review and merge this though, > > I guess Rafael? > > Yes, that would be me. :-) > > I no one speaks up against them, I'll pick them up. Let me send a final version of these. I need to add one more patch to the series where I remove an extra device_remove_properties() call from platform_device_del(). It's unnecessary in any case as device_del() calls device_remove_properties() for every device, but as the properties are removed there before the device is removed, we're unable to deduct the final ref count in the "remove" platform notification since our node is no longer bind to the device. Thanks, -- heikki