[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f7fd8cb5-6c1e-fc72-c380-cedb4a459355@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 23:33:06 +0000
From: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ica.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
lenb@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.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,
laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org, kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com,
kitakar@...il.com, jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/12] software_node: Enforce parent before child
ordering of nodes arrays
On 18/12/2020 20:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> + * Register multiple software nodes at once. If any node in the array
>> + * has it's .parent pointer set, then it's parent **must** have been
>
> it's => its in both cases?
Done, ty
>> + * registered before it is; either outside of this function or by
>> + * ordering the array such that parent comes before child.
>> */
>
> ...
>
>> + const struct software_node *parent = nodes[i].parent;
>> +
>> + if (parent && !software_node_to_swnode(parent)) {
>
> Can we have parent of swnode in an array not being an swnode?
> Either comment that parent for swnode can be swnode only (Heikki, was it an
> idea?) or check if parent is of swnode type and only that apply this
> requirement.
.parent can be a pointer to software_node only yes; I can add that to
the document comment.
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto err_unregister_nodes;
>> }
>
> ...
>
>> + * Unregister multiple software nodes at once. 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.
>
> Shouldn't be consistent with above, i.e. **must** ?
Done also
Powered by blists - more mailing lists