On Thu Sep 4, 2025 at 7:56 AM CEST, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Danilo, > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 07:22:29PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >> (Cc: Javier) >> >> On Wed Sep 3, 2025 at 3:18 PM CEST, Sakari Ailus wrote: >> > Do we really need the available variant? >> > >> > Please see >> > <URL:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/Zwj12J5bTNUEnxA0@kekkonen.localdomain/>. >> > >> > I'll post a patch to remove fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(), too. >> >> Either I'm missing something substantial or the link does indeed not provide an >> obvious justification of why you want to send a patch to remove >> fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(). >> >> Do you mean to say that all fwnode backends always return true for >> device_is_available() and hence the fwnode API should not make this distinction? >> >> I.e. are you referring to the fact that of_fwnode_get_next_child_node() always >> calls of_get_next_available_child() and swnode has no device_is_available() >> callback and hence is always available? What about ACPI? > > On ACPI there's no such concept on ACPI data nodes so all data nodes are > considered to be available. So effectively the fwnode_*available*() is > always the same as the variant without _available(). What about acpi_fwnode_device_is_available()? Is it guaranteed to always evaluate to true? If so, to you plan to remove device_is_available() from struct fwnode_operations and fixup all users of fwnode_get_next_available_child_node() and fwnode_for_each_available_child_node() as well?
