[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZcoJEUTdMAKdMHd1@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:03:29 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Sumera Priyadarsini <sylphrenadin@...il.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops.
On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 05:42:28PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
>
> Since RFC:
> - Provide a for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() variant and
> use that whenever we aren't specifically trying to include disabled
> nodes.
> - Fix the for_each_child_of_node_scoped() to not use a mix of
> _available_ and other calls.
> - Include a few more examples. The last one is there to show that
> not all uses of the __free(device_node) call are due to the loops.
I'm a bit skeptical about need of this work. What I would prefer to see
is getting rid of OF-centric drivers in IIO. With that, we would need
only fwnode part to be properly implemented.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists