[PATCH] pmdomain: imx: gpc: set fwnode from parent device

[Ulf Hansson]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 12:12, Emil Kronborg Andersen <emkan at prevas.dk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 14:42 +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > I had a bit closer look at this. If I understand things correctly,
> > this problem is because the imx_gpc_driver's ->probe() (imx_gpc_probe)
> > is allocating/adding a new platform device, per child-of-node to
> > represent a power-domain.
> >
> > I suspect in most other cases where a platform device is being
> > allocated per child node, is when the child node has a
> > compatible-string and the parent driver is calling
> > of_platform_populate(), or similar. In those cases, the "dev.fwnode"
> > would be set accordingly, but not in the imx_gpc_driver case as it
> > needs to be set explicitly.
> >
> > That said, it looks like we should move forward with the $subject
> > patch. However, it looks like the patch [1] from Pengfei Li is more
> > correct than the $subject patch.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Uffe
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231020185949.537083-1-pengfei.li_1@nxp.com/
>
> That is also how I understand it works.
>
> I was unsure if the patch from Pengfei Li [1] solves the same issue as
> this patch, since there are no errors included in the commit message.
> However, after testing the patch in [1], I can confirm that it fixes:
>
> [    1.039830] imx-gpc 20dc000.gpc: Failed to create device link (0x180) with 20c8000.anatop:regulator-vddpu
>
> I based my solution on other patches, where device_set_node() is used.
> For example, a26cc2934331 ("drm/mipi-dsi: Set the fwnode for
> mipi_dsi_device") and 6dbe6c07f94f ("gpio: Propagate firmware node from
> a parent"). I am curious: Why is the approach in [1] considered more
> correct? It seems logical to set the fwnode as early as possible from
> the parent its device.

Why do we want to use the parent's node? The devices (platform-device)
that we allocate belongs to the corresponding parsed child node,
doesn't it?

Kind regards
Uffe