From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B599C388F7 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 12:47:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A00520637 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 12:47:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730542AbgKJMrI (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:47:08 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f65.google.com ([209.85.210.65]:35987 "EHLO mail-ot1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730150AbgKJMrI (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:47:08 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f65.google.com with SMTP id n89so1137238otn.3; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:47:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iQI2guPjiDZb/My9nXr68aWP3FxBBZe/IxqcdhKiV/8=; b=VVOSFla7rm2VFbnkQOvKXcbMP4+t3VsdZ2No6MCkSOZcgNBFPV7Y9NR5SGF1S6Jgwa L4D024E7CmqXVW+fNEYScFcTkTFk/f5SVk5O7oiL11ia2I5wb94YSCmJkiigVTFKwwmr sr7JGUUAD4KJoPJH79qfL/n75aQKQpg3j7gJHq9wC0n6/S0eSRyW0f5w7zPOISl1eLy0 LsE7SLx5B31LzbCmK8VWycgMZgfXTAfTtdPbKMreFid+S/7JHNuolqoK0sXWXUvphy+C 1c1cSivSOwZBex9KOUOAxCZHAFRla+q4v/4Zg1asvOl18s9KU1EDt4fuLGteE8LBzN9a BMDA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319jEI935ppUFoUOME+p2/J1QDEJHELZ+1MN1Vee4FSrhmjX2si bv1An44+J5SeGV91UNVpGZgaBt3LPR6DzfP18pU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz5pC83/KRZx7w7Vo6FyNhdmyLZJwGmN2hwsfoIrsxqQ+5Z+EEtzTarksKAhskk4wWF4GSOIjntpHA9alZMmY8= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:16f:: with SMTP id 102mr14745639otu.206.1605012427418; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:47:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201109172435.GJ4077@smile.fi.intel.com> <20201109185305.GT1003057@dtor-ws> <20201109190551.GM4077@smile.fi.intel.com> <20201110123939.GN1224435@kuha.fi.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20201110123939.GN1224435@kuha.fi.intel.com> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:46:54 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/6] software node: implement reference properties To: Heikki Krogerus Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Dmitry Torokhov , Lukasz Stelmach , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mika Westerberg , Linus Walleij , Ard Biesheuvel , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Platform Driver , Marek Szyprowski , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:39 PM Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 09:05:51PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 10:53:05AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 07:18:37PM +0100, Lukasz Stelmach wrote: > > > > It was <2020-11-09 pon 19:24>, when Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > Probably I have missed something and I will be greatful, if you tell me > > > > where I can find more information about software nodes. There are few > > > > users in the kernel and it isn't obvious for me how to use software > > > > nodes properly. > > > > > > Yeah, I disagree with Andy here. The lookup tables are a crutch that we > > > have until GPIO and PWM a taught to support software nodes (I need to > > > resurrect my patch series for GPIO, if you have time to test that would > > > be awesome). > > > > We don't have support for list of fwnodes, this will probably break things > > where swnode is already exist. > > > > I think Heikki may send a documentation patch to clarify when swnodes can and > > can't be used. Maybe I'm mistaken and above is a good use case by design. > > Yeah, the problem is that I'm not sure that we can limit the swnodes > for any specific purpose, or dictate very strictly how they are used > with other possible fwnodes. Generally agreed, but if there are known problems, they need to be documented at least for the time being until they are addressed. > Right now I'm thinking we should simply not talk about the > relationship a software node should have or can have with other > fwnodes (regardless of their type) in the swnode documentation. This sounds reasonable to me, with the above exception.