Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:33:37 +0200 | Subject | Re: fwnode_for_each_child_node() and OF backend discrepancy |
| |
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 3:08 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 27/06/2022 14:49, Michael Walle wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I tired to iterate over all child nodes, regardless if they are > > available > > or not. Now there is that handy fwnode_for_each_child_node() (and the > > fwnode_for_each_available_child_node()). The only thing is the OF > > backend > > already skips disabled nodes [1], making fwnode_for_each_child_node() > > and > > fwnode_for_each_available_child_node() behave the same with the OF > > backend. > > > > Doesn't seem to be noticed by anyone for now. I'm not sure how to fix > > that > > one. fwnode_for_each_child_node() and also fwnode_get_next_child_node() > > are > > used by a handful of drivers. I've looked at some, but couldn't decide > > whether they really want to iterate over all child nodes or just the > > enabled > > ones. > > If I get it correctly, this was introduced by 8a0662d9ed29 ("Driver > core: Unified interface for firmware node properties") > .
Originally it was, but then it has been reworked a few times.
The backend callbacks were introduced by Sakari, in particular.
> The question to Rafael - what was your intention when you added > device_get_next_child_node() looking only for available nodes?
That depends on the backend.
fwnode_for_each_available_child_node() is more specific and IIRC it was introduced for fw_devlink (CC Saravana).
> My understanding is that this implementation should be consistent with > OF implementation, so fwnode_get_next_child_node=get any child.
IIUC, the OF implementation is not consistent with the fwnode_get_next_child_node=get any child thing.
> However maybe ACPI treats it somehow differently?
acpi_get_next_subnode() simply returns the next subnode it can find.
| |