On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:46:19PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:39:14AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:25:14PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:52:08AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > Instead of fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that I plan to hide away, let's use > > > > the new fwnode_gpiod_get_index() that mimics gpiod_get_index(), bit > > > > works with arbitrary firmware node. > > > > > > I'm wondering if it's possible to step forward and replace > > > fwnode_get_gpiod_index by gpiod_get() / gpiod_get_index() here and > > > in other cases in this series. > > > > No, those require a struct device, but we have none. There are network > > drivers where there is a struct device for the network complex, but only > > DT nodes for the individual network interfaces. So no, gpiod_* really > > doesn't work. > > In the following patch the node is derived from struct device. So, I believe > some cases can be handled differently.
phylink is not passed a struct device - it has no knowledge what the parent device is. In any case, I do not have "the following patch". -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
