[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201130174542.GQ4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:45:42 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ica.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
lenb@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
bgolaszewski@...libre.com, wsa@...nel.org, yong.zhi@...el.com,
sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com, bingbu.cao@...el.com,
tian.shu.qiu@...el.com, mchehab@...nel.org, robert.moore@...el.com,
erik.kaneda@...el.com, pmladek@...e.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org,
laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com, kitakar@...il.com,
heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] software_node: Alter
software_node_unregister_nodes() to unregister the array in reverse order
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:16PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
> Software nodes that are children of another software node should be
> unregistered before their parent. To allow easy unregistering of an array
> of software_nodes ordered parent to child, reverse the order in which
> this function unregisters software_nodes.
Should be folded in the previous patch. Otherwise we will have a history point
where register() behaves differently to unregister().
...
> + * @nodes: Zero terminated array of software nodes to be unregistered. If
> + * parent pointers are set up in any of the software nodes then the array
> + * MUST be ordered such that parents come before their children.
Please, leave field description short. Rather add another note to the
Description below.
> *
> * Unregister multiple software nodes at once.
> *
> - * NOTE: Be careful using this call if the nodes had parent pointers set up in
> - * them before registering. If so, it is wiser to remove the nodes
> - * individually, in the correct order (child before parent) instead of relying
> - * on the sequential order of the list of nodes in the array.
> + * NOTE: If you are uncertain whether the array is ordered such that
> + * parents will be unregistered before their children, it is wiser to
> + * remove the nodes individually, in the correct order (child before
> + * parent).
> */
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists