On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:19:52 +0200, Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]> said: > On Wed Jul 15, 2026 at 5:06 PM CEST, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 15:52:07 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> >> said: >>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 20:45:13 +0200, Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]> said: >>>> On Mon Jul 13, 2026 at 5:11 PM CEST, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>>> >>>> So, either we have to special case platform_device_set_of_node() too (for >>>> the >>>> case that a swnode is set already), or just require that the function must >>>> only >>>> be called when no node has been set, as all users already do; I'd go for >>>> the >>>> latter. >>> >>> This sounds good too and it should be easy to implement another test case >>> while >>> at it. >> >> Oh but wouldn't that require us to introduce an integer return value for >> these >> functions? Or are you talking about simply updating the API contract? > > Yes, we could update the API contract; we could also consider adding a > WARN_ON() > for the case a node is already set. > >> I think calling device_remove_software_node() on >> is_software_node(dev_fwnode(dev)) in platform_device_set_fwnode() be enough >> to handle that case, right? > > Yes, we can special case it, but the "replace the existing node if any" part > of > that function is already dead code. > > So, if no one needs it now, I'd rather remove it and wait for someone to have > a > valid use-case. >
Ok, will do that. While at it: the other dependency of this series is: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ It's been reviewed and I think it's ready. It shouldn't conflict with the other dependency that Greg already queued. Would you mind picking patches 1-4 from that series into an immutable branch based on v7.2-rc1 and taking them through the driver core tree and I'd queue patch 5 through the GPIO tree after fixing conflicts with other GPIO kunit tests I already picked up? Thanks, Bartosz
