[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFRkauDnp0pEEFkzvUoD8i4Up5DaMJDM26uGihah86FxsO7Rsw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:23:45 +0800
From: Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>
To: Guodong Xu <guodong.xu@...aro.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Support Opensource <support.opensource@...semi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: remove unnecessary of_node_get() to parent
2014-09-10 12:20 GMT+08:00 Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>:
> 2014-09-10 11:50 GMT+08:00 Guodong Xu <guodong.xu@...aro.org>:
>> These of_node_get() were added to balance refcount decrements inside of
>> of_find_node_by_name().
>> See: commit c92f5dd2c42f ("regulator: Add missing of_node_put()")
>>
>> However of_find_node_by_name() was then replaced by of_get_child_by_name(),
>> which doesn't call of_node_put() against its input parameter.
>>
>> So, need to remove these unnecessary of_node_get() calls.
>
> The of_node_get() and of_node_put() is a pair.
> You need to either keep both or remove both.
>
>
> BTW,
> I think either the comment of of_get_child_by_name() needs fix or the
> implementation
> needs fix. The implementation does not increment refcount.
Ah, I see the of_node_get() and of_node_put() in __of_get_next_child.
So of_get_child_by_name() is correct.(both comment and implementation)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists