On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 4:31 PM Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon May 11, 2026 at 4:17 PM CEST, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Mon, 11 May 2026 16:00:23 +0200, Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]> said: > >> On Mon May 11, 2026 at 9:33 AM CEST, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > >>> Danilo: if there are no further comments, can you pick it up for v7.1? > >> > >> It seems that sashiko has a valid concern in [1]; can you confirm? > >> > >> [1] > >> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260430-swnode-remove-on-dev-unreg-v4-0-01574da0aed3%40oss.qualcomm.com > >> > > > > Yes, I explained it here[1]. Basically it's similar to how we need to call > > platform_device_add_data() for devices created with platform_device_alloc(). > > > > We can consider adding platform_device_add_software_node() once there's > > a potential user but for now I'd just leave it like this. > > But there are users that already need this, no? There is Xe [1] and Surface > GPE > [2], or am I missing something? > > [1] > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.1-rc2/source/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_i2c.c#L99 > [2] > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.1-rc2/source/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c#L308
Right, I was not aware of these. That could indeed cause a regression. I'd like to fix the problem in v7.1 but also keep it minimal so adding platform_device_add_software_node() and updating drivers to using it may be the next step but for now: how about adding platform_device_release_full() which would call device_remove_software_node() and then the existing platform_device_release()? We'd replace the .release callback of struct device in platform_device_register_full() but if the user just uses platform_device_alloc(), they would keep the regular .release() that doesn't remove the software node? That would go into v7.1 and then I'd provide platform_device_add_software_node(), use it in all drivers that need it, and then we'd remove platform_device_release_full() and go back to a single, unified release callback? Does it make sense? Bart
