Hi Danilo, others, On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 12:13:53PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Thu Sep 4, 2025 at 11:59 AM CEST, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 11:49:25AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> > >> > It might be good to have an immutable branch for me from i2c core. > >> > Wolfram, can you provide a such if no objections? > >> > >> Sure thing, I can do that. But there is still discussion on patch 1, so > >> I will wait for an outcome there. > > > > But it seems that the discussion can be implemented in a followup? > > If Sakari attempts the rework, and we can prove this doesn't regress existing > users, removing fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped() in the context > of the rework again should be trivial. It would perhaps be trivial but in this case I really wouldn't add it in the first place: it's unused. Either way, feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Given that, I don't see a reason to stall people working with the existing > semantics of the API in the meantime. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
