Re: [PATCH 0/3] gpiolib: generalize GPIO line names property

From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org,
	Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] gpiolib: generalize GPIO line names property
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 18:03:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJUOhFjmFFq3sKZSh3QTjgZSGLhRRFt=iSzYAmXzNzupaw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200915131648.GY3956970@smile.fi.intel.com>

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:16 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 04:12:28PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:01:56PM +0200, Anders Roxell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 18:40, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> > > >
> > > > I initially sent this as part of the gpio-mockup overhaul but since
> > > > these patches are indepentent and the work on gpio-mockup may become
> > > > more complicated - I'm sending these separately.
> > > >
> > > > The only change is adding additional property helpers to count strings
> > > > in array.
> > > >
> > > > Bartosz Golaszewski (3):
> > > >   device: property: add helpers to count items in string arrays
> > > >   gpiolib: generalize devprop_gpiochip_set_names() for device properties
> > > >   gpiolib: unexport devprop_gpiochip_set_names()
> >
> > Ha-ha, OF unittest is of_node centric. definitely there is no backed device.
> >
> > Bart, it seems we are stuck with fwnode interface.
>
> Hmm... There is a platform device. So, it means that it fails along these
> lines:
>   return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node ? &dev->of_node->fwnode : dev->fwnode;
> so, who should set fwnode for of_node?
>

It's strange because the device for this unittest is registered
similarly to how we do it in gpio-mockup where this function works.
I've not investigated the internals but somewhere someone sets the
fwnode for these platform devices.

Bartosz