From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout07.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout07.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E658D33F8A3; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 13:18:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.222 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765977501; cv=none; b=a4+IXfCg5wWaS7LUqnZkLn6RZLWjuLfZayOUET/OBfXGYbtJB5srCDdMevL1JXnz+wdPpwcm/yDAQDC9DTG6k7YHUiP2emAZZYMM2rLjb9eerlWMbVQ1YMtSHq6OLRnjTvxF7XywD54bhN/Qmls4pkDgfBFezV+lAmglxqZehbo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765977501; c=relaxed/simple; bh=e9htGRrLBo4DxHi/oc04WYleYBmnNxCjseFyJu1jFl8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:CC:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=KpQVH0+nL7vx8OiAZXX4k6PFHIRpiCgkcbDrQ1SGhWj5Q77v1fadg5XMfPIlEBwPamjDQ8vaEgN8xENKSlnKuppe/xezl97Mx93VJZ4Nh2fYia/gTO0RacOKc5BkQuJKzIeQ/CxJwxOTLWff9UTekU1a1S7oJGDVsGtga1udJAA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=HQD4OCao; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.222 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="HQD4OCao" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=fT/EAGBJmoZExPyaBUMC4XGpOtO/rqpDZTWhkNmpGnE=; b=HQD4OCaoWOF4qRvMP2KYyh9+VP52s27rsCTgjZjQblf2n6gtctafcwamYH+Fvpt4FSIOMvN8Q m39yLgLVnv+9Qjwi3f3dffjnMGbQA0R40YpyMHg19aGLE923dQbozS0/yfGKfs4RKgZ2K4sXzTS p01GpU8miXslI6MBH7bhWLw= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.112]) by canpmsgout07.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4dWZ615SyqzLlTs; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:15:05 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemk100013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.194.61]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1036140109; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:18:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.120.192] (10.67.120.192) by kwepemk100013.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:18:06 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:18:06 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/6] net: phy: change of_phy_leds() to fwnode_phy_leds() To: Jonathan Cameron References: <20251215125705.1567527-1-shaojijie@huawei.com> <20251215125705.1567527-2-shaojijie@huawei.com> <20251217103701.000066f8@huawei.com> From: Jijie Shao In-Reply-To: <20251217103701.000066f8@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems100001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.238) To kwepemk100013.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.61) on 2025/12/17 18:37, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 20:57:00 +0800 > Jijie Shao wrote: > >> Change of_phy_leds() to fwnode_phy_leds(), to support >> of node, acpi node, and software node together. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jijie Shao > One minor suggestion inline. It is a 'while you are here' > and whilst there are uses of the _scoped loops > in drivers/net I'm not sure how much appetite there is > for using them wider. > > Jonathan > > >> --- >> drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++------------------- >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c >> index 8 >> - >> - if (!node) >> + if (!fwnode) >> return 0; >> >> - leds = of_get_child_by_name(node, "leds"); >> + leds = fwnode_get_named_child_node(fwnode, "leds"); >> if (!leds) >> return 0; >> >> @@ -3311,17 +3308,17 @@ static int of_phy_leds(struct phy_device *phydev) >> goto exit; >> } >> >> - for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped(leds, led) { >> - err = of_phy_led(phydev, led); >> + fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(leds, led) { > Maybe use the _scoped version to simplify this a little given > you are changing it. Yes, it is indeed necessary to use fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped() Thanks, Jijie Shao