| Message ID | 20240721-device_for_each_child_node-available-v2-0-f33748fd8b2d@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes | expand |
On Sun, 21 Jul 2024, Javier Carrasco wrote: > This series aims to clarify the use cases of: > > - device_for_each_child_node[_scoped]() > - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node[_scoped]() > > to access firmware nodes. > > There have been multiple discussions [1][2] about what the first macro > implies in the sense of availability, and a number of users have opted > for the second macro in cases where the first one should have been > preferred. > > The second macro is intended to be used over child nodes of a firmware > node, not direct child nodes of the device node. Instead, those users > retrieve the fwnode member from the device struct just to have access to > a macro that explicitly indicates node availability. > > That workaround is not necessary because `device_for_each_child_node()` > implies availability for the existing backends (ACPI, DT, swnode). > > This series does not cover other points discussed in [2] like addressing > uses of `fwnode_for_each_child_node()` where `device_*` should have been > used, using the `_avaialble_` variant of the fwnode loop whenever > possible, or adding new `_scoped` macros. Such points will be covered by > subsequent series to keep focus on the "availability" issue. > > The conversion has been validated with an LTC2992 hwmon sensor, which is > one of the affected drivers. The rest of the drivers could only be > compiled and checked with static-analysis tools. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211205190101.26de4a57@jic23-huawei/ [1] > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240523-fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped-v2-0-701f3a03f2fb@gmail.com/ [2] > > Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> > --- > Changes in v2: > - [1/6] property.h: drop "if found" from the description of > device_for_each_child_node() > - [3/6] bd2607mvv.c: fix child node usage. > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240706-device_for_each_child_node-available-v1-0-8a3f7615e41c@gmail.com > > --- > Javier Carrasco (6): > device property: document device_for_each_child_node macro > hwmon: (ltc2992) use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes > leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() > leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes > leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes > net: mvpp2: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes > > drivers/hwmon/ltc2992.c | 19 ++++---------- > drivers/leds/leds-bd2606mvv.c | 23 ++++++++--------- > drivers/leds/leds-is31fl319x.c | 34 ++++++++----------------- > drivers/leds/leds-pca995x.c | 15 ++++------- > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c | 13 +++------- > include/linux/property.h | 10 ++++++++ > 6 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-) > --- > base-commit: 41c196e567fb1ea97f68a2ffb7faab451cd90854 > change-id: 20240701-device_for_each_child_node-available-1c1eca4b6495 fatal: bad object 41c196e567fb1ea97f68a2ffb7faab451cd90854 And the LED patches do not apply to LED. Please rebase onto -next.
On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:19:00 +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: > This series aims to clarify the use cases of: > > - device_for_each_child_node[_scoped]() > - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node[_scoped]() > > to access firmware nodes. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() commit: 75d2a77327c4917bb66163eea0374bb749428e9c [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes commit: 0f5a3feb60aba5d74f0b655cdff9c35aca03e81b [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes (no commit info) -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
On 25/07/2024 18:28, Lee Jones wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:19:00 +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: >> This series aims to clarify the use cases of: >> >> - device_for_each_child_node[_scoped]() >> - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node[_scoped]() >> >> to access firmware nodes. >> >> [...] > > Applied, thanks! > > [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() > commit: 75d2a77327c4917bb66163eea0374bb749428e9c > [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes > commit: 0f5a3feb60aba5d74f0b655cdff9c35aca03e81b > [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes > (no commit info) > > -- > Lee Jones [李琼斯] > Hi Lee, could you please tell me where you applied them? I rebased onto linux-next to prepare for v3, and these patches are still added on top of it. Can I find them in some leds/ branch? Thank you. Best regards, Javier Carrasco
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Javier Carrasco wrote: > On 25/07/2024 18:28, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:19:00 +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: > >> This series aims to clarify the use cases of: > >> > >> - device_for_each_child_node[_scoped]() > >> - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node[_scoped]() > >> > >> to access firmware nodes. > >> > >> [...] > > > > Applied, thanks! > > > > [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() > > commit: 75d2a77327c4917bb66163eea0374bb749428e9c > > [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes > > commit: 0f5a3feb60aba5d74f0b655cdff9c35aca03e81b > > [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes > > (no commit info) > > > > -- > > Lee Jones [李琼斯] > > > > Hi Lee, > > could you please tell me where you applied them? I rebased onto > linux-next to prepare for v3, and these patches are still added on top > of it. Can I find them in some leds/ branch? Thank you. Sorry, I was side-tracked before pushing. Pushed now. They should be in -next tomorrow.
On 01/08/2024 14:39, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Javier Carrasco wrote: > >> On 25/07/2024 18:28, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:19:00 +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>> This series aims to clarify the use cases of: >>>> >>>> - device_for_each_child_node[_scoped]() >>>> - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node[_scoped]() >>>> >>>> to access firmware nodes. >>>> >>>> [...] >>> >>> Applied, thanks! >>> >>> [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() >>> commit: 75d2a77327c4917bb66163eea0374bb749428e9c >>> [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes >>> commit: 0f5a3feb60aba5d74f0b655cdff9c35aca03e81b >>> [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes >>> (no commit info) >>> >>> -- >>> Lee Jones [李琼斯] >>> >> >> Hi Lee, >> >> could you please tell me where you applied them? I rebased onto >> linux-next to prepare for v3, and these patches are still added on top >> of it. Can I find them in some leds/ branch? Thank you. > > Sorry, I was side-tracked before pushing. > > Pushed now. They should be in -next tomorrow. > Thanks, I see [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes applied to -next, but [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes has not been applied yet.
On Fri, 02 Aug 2024, Javier Carrasco wrote: > On 01/08/2024 14:39, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Javier Carrasco wrote: > > > >> On 25/07/2024 18:28, Lee Jones wrote: > >>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:19:00 +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: > >>>> This series aims to clarify the use cases of: > >>>> > >>>> - device_for_each_child_node[_scoped]() > >>>> - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node[_scoped]() > >>>> > >>>> to access firmware nodes. > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>> > >>> Applied, thanks! > >>> > >>> [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() > >>> commit: 75d2a77327c4917bb66163eea0374bb749428e9c > >>> [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes > >>> commit: 0f5a3feb60aba5d74f0b655cdff9c35aca03e81b > >>> [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes > >>> (no commit info) > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Lee Jones [李琼斯] > >>> > >> > >> Hi Lee, > >> > >> could you please tell me where you applied them? I rebased onto > >> linux-next to prepare for v3, and these patches are still added on top > >> of it. Can I find them in some leds/ branch? Thank you. > > > > Sorry, I was side-tracked before pushing. > > > > Pushed now. They should be in -next tomorrow. > > > > Thanks, I see > > [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() > > [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to > access child nodes > > applied to -next, but > > [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device > child nodes > > has not been applied yet. Yep, looks like b4 didn't like that one: [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() commit: 75d2a77327c4917bb66163eea0374bb749428e9c [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes commit: 0f5a3feb60aba5d74f0b655cdff9c35aca03e81b [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes (no commit info) I'll try again and see if it can be pulled in. If not you'll have to resubmit it.
On 05/08/2024 16:33, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 05 Aug 2024, Lee Jones wrote: > >> On Fri, 02 Aug 2024, Javier Carrasco wrote: >> >>> On 01/08/2024 14:39, Lee Jones wrote: >>>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 25/07/2024 18:28, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:19:00 +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>>>>> This series aims to clarify the use cases of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - device_for_each_child_node[_scoped]() >>>>>>> - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node[_scoped]() >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to access firmware nodes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> Applied, thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() >>>>>> commit: 75d2a77327c4917bb66163eea0374bb749428e9c >>>>>> [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes >>>>>> commit: 0f5a3feb60aba5d74f0b655cdff9c35aca03e81b >>>>>> [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes >>>>>> (no commit info) >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Lee Jones [李琼斯] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Lee, >>>>> >>>>> could you please tell me where you applied them? I rebased onto >>>>> linux-next to prepare for v3, and these patches are still added on top >>>>> of it. Can I find them in some leds/ branch? Thank you. >>>> >>>> Sorry, I was side-tracked before pushing. >>>> >>>> Pushed now. They should be in -next tomorrow. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, I see >>> >>> [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() >>> >>> [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to >>> access child nodes >>> >>> applied to -next, but >>> >>> [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device >>> child nodes >>> >>> has not been applied yet. >> >> Yep, looks like b4 didn't like that one: >> >> [3/6] leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() >> commit: 75d2a77327c4917bb66163eea0374bb749428e9c >> [4/6] leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes >> commit: 0f5a3feb60aba5d74f0b655cdff9c35aca03e81b >> [5/6] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes >> (no commit info) >> >> I'll try again and see if it can be pulled in. >> >> If not you'll have to resubmit it. > > Now results in conflict: > > Applying patch(es) > Applying: leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes > Using index info to reconstruct a base tree... > M drivers/leds/leds-pca995x.c > Checking patch drivers/leds/leds-pca995x.c... > Applied patch drivers/leds/leds-pca995x.c cleanly. > Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge... > error: Your local changes to the following files would be overwritten by merge: > drivers/leds/leds-pca995x.c > Please commit your changes or stash them before you merge. > Aborting > error: Failed to merge in the changes. > Patch failed at 0001 leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes > hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch > hint: When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue". > hint: If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead. > hint: To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort". > hint: Disable this message with "git config advice.mergeConflict false" > > Failed to apply patches (fix and either hit return to continue or Ctrl+c to exit) > > Please rebase and resubmit. > Thank you for making the effort anyway, I will resubmit the patch. Best regards, Javier Carrasco
This series aims to clarify the use cases of: - device_for_each_child_node[_scoped]() - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node[_scoped]() to access firmware nodes. There have been multiple discussions [1][2] about what the first macro implies in the sense of availability, and a number of users have opted for the second macro in cases where the first one should have been preferred. The second macro is intended to be used over child nodes of a firmware node, not direct child nodes of the device node. Instead, those users retrieve the fwnode member from the device struct just to have access to a macro that explicitly indicates node availability. That workaround is not necessary because `device_for_each_child_node()` implies availability for the existing backends (ACPI, DT, swnode). This series does not cover other points discussed in [2] like addressing uses of `fwnode_for_each_child_node()` where `device_*` should have been used, using the `_avaialble_` variant of the fwnode loop whenever possible, or adding new `_scoped` macros. Such points will be covered by subsequent series to keep focus on the "availability" issue. The conversion has been validated with an LTC2992 hwmon sensor, which is one of the affected drivers. The rest of the drivers could only be compiled and checked with static-analysis tools. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211205190101.26de4a57@jic23-huawei/ [1] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240523-fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped-v2-0-701f3a03f2fb@gmail.com/ [2] Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> --- Changes in v2: - [1/6] property.h: drop "if found" from the description of device_for_each_child_node() - [3/6] bd2607mvv.c: fix child node usage. - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240706-device_for_each_child_node-available-v1-0-8a3f7615e41c@gmail.com --- Javier Carrasco (6): device property: document device_for_each_child_node macro hwmon: (ltc2992) use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes leds: bd2606mvv: fix device child node usage in bd2606mvv_probe() leds: is31fl319x: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() to access child nodes leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes net: mvpp2: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes drivers/hwmon/ltc2992.c | 19 ++++---------- drivers/leds/leds-bd2606mvv.c | 23 ++++++++--------- drivers/leds/leds-is31fl319x.c | 34 ++++++++----------------- drivers/leds/leds-pca995x.c | 15 ++++------- drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c | 13 +++------- include/linux/property.h | 10 ++++++++ 6 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-) --- base-commit: 41c196e567fb1ea97f68a2ffb7faab451cd90854 change-id: 20240701-device_for_each_child_node-available-1c1eca4b6495 Best regards,