On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 04:55:37PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 04:40:37PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 07:18:14AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>
> > > Looking at patch 4, if matching the name is what you want to do, then
> > > use the DT name matching functions. They were added in 4.19.
> >
> > That is something that the of_fwnode_get_named_child_node() needs
> > to use (would have needed).
> >
> > Regardless of what we do with that callback, fwnode_name() needs to
> > return the name in from that for example of_node_name_eq() takes as
> > the second parameter. So "node-name@unit-address" is not OK. Sorry for
> > not realizeing that before.
> >
> > So I guess we need to either get the "node-name" from that full_name
> > member in of_fwnode_name() (Andy, are you OK with that?), or is there
> > already a helper that does it for us?
>
> Looking into existing API I think we need something like
>
> of_node_name_extract()
>
> of_node_name_eq()
> {
> name = of_node_name_extract();
> return strlen()...strncmp()...;
> }
>
> The question is who is going to allocate and free memory for the name out of
> it.
Maybe it would be best to just read the "name" device property in
fwnode_name() and not have of_fwnode_name at all.
> OTOH, of_fwnode_get_named_child_node() might need to copy that code which
> brings the consistency issue (several places to maintain the same set of
> rules,
> i.e. how we extract name out of full_name).
>
> So, removal of name field shouldn't be done until we resolve the issue with
> of_fwnode_get_named_child_node().
thanks,
--
heikki
