Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2026 07:54:27 +0300 | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v1 0/5] net: mdiobus: HIde ACPI implementation |
| |
On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 05:16:57PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 04:49:35PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 03:02:54PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 09:29:51AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > This mini-series is dedicated to hiding ACPI implementation details > > > > from the wider users as they (as of today) do not need to know that. > > > > > > Please could you expand on that. ACPI != OF. They have different > > > bindings, so you need different implementations. > > > > As of today the users that want ACPI also have the OF support. Even without > > that if the device is pure ACPI supported one (and somehow never going to DT) > > the proposed API (see the first patch) will be no-op in case when CONFIG_ACPI=n > > or when it's a non-ACPI platform with no support of the device. Hence, the > > pure ACPI (and actually OF as well) do not need to be exposed. The decision is > > made based on the type of firmware node. > > I see two different things here: > > You are refactoring code into a helper, so reducing the amount of > duplicated code. That in itself is good. > > However, we have the problem in general that developers think that OF > and ACPI do the same thing. And that is not true. OF MDIO busses have > support for a GPIO used as a reset. In retrospect, that was a bad > idea. The documented ACPI binding does not have this, and if anybody > was to suggest adding it, i want to NACK it. > > Having OF code and ACPI code to instantiate the MDIO bus makes it > clearer they are different things. fwnode gives the impression they > are the same, which is not true. Hence i don't like fwnode at this > level. > > Where fwnode makes sense is deeper down in the implementation of the > bindings, for properties which are the same in both bindings. Then > you can use fwnode_ for the shared properties, of_ for the OF only > properties, and acpi_ for the ACPI only properties. > > So although i like the reduction in duplicated code, i think overall > it makes the code worse because developers are more likely to wrongly > understand it.
OK. Thanks for review.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
|  |