There are two, but dependent pair of patches that:
- makes some of devlink APIs static
- removes 'proxy' header use

This is rebased on top of latest patches from Jonathan as it has a minor
conflict in property.h. The series can be applied directly to driver
core tree with reduced context, but it may be better just to route it
via IIO. Greg, which way do you prefer?

v3:
- improved commit message in patch 2 (Rafael)
- added tag (Rafael)

v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240223155731.858412-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
- most of the patches were sent separately as v1, thus this series is v2
- harvested tags from that patches (Sakari, Saravana)

Andy Shevchenko (4):
  driver core: Drop unneeded 'extern' keyword in fwnode.h
  driver core: Move fw_devlink stuff to where it belongs
  device property: Move enum dev_dma_attr to fwnode.h
  device property: Don't use "proxy" headers

 drivers/base/core.c      | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/base/property.c  | 67 ++++------------------------------------
 drivers/base/swnode.c    | 13 +++++++-
 include/linux/fwnode.h   | 13 +++++---
 include/linux/property.h |  9 +-----
 5 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)

-- 
2.43.0.rc1.1.gbec44491f096

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:23:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> There are two, but dependent pair of patches that:
> - makes some of devlink APIs static
> - removes 'proxy' header use
> 
> This is rebased on top of latest patches from Jonathan as it has a minor
> conflict in property.h. The series can be applied directly to driver
> core tree with reduced context, but it may be better just to route it
> via IIO. Greg, which way do you prefer?

Why would IIO mess with driver core stuff?

I can just take it in my driver core tree, thanks.

greg k-h

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 07:46:15PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:23:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > There are two, but dependent pair of patches that:
> > - makes some of devlink APIs static
> > - removes 'proxy' header use
> > 
> > This is rebased on top of latest patches from Jonathan as it has a minor
> > conflict in property.h. The series can be applied directly to driver
> > core tree with reduced context, but it may be better just to route it
> > via IIO. Greg, which way do you prefer?
> 
> Why would IIO mess with driver core stuff?
> 
> I can just take it in my driver core tree, thanks.

Let me base on your driver-core-testing then.
Thank you!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko