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(). -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
