linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 0/4] of: automate of_node_put()

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 16:39:42 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	marek.vasut@...il.com,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 0/4] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach
 to loops.

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 02:27:10PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> 
> Some discussion occured on previous posting.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240223124432.26443-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com/
> 
> Summary:
> * fwnode conversions should be considered when applying this
>   infrastructure to a driver. Perhaps better to move directly to
>   the generic FW property handling rather than improve existing
>   of specific code.
> * There are lots of potential places to use this based on detections
>   from Julia's coccinelle scripts linked below.
> 
> The equivalent device_for_each_child_node_scoped() series for
> fwnode will be queued up in IIO for the merge window shortly as
> it has gathered sufficient tags. Hopefully the precdent set there
> for the approach will reassure people that instantiating the
> child variable inside the macro definition is the best approach.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240217164249.921878-1-jic23@kernel.org/
> 
> v2: Andy suggested most of the original converted set should move to
>     generic fwnode / property.h handling.  Within IIO that was
>     a reasonable observation given we've been trying to move away from
>     firmware specific handling for some time. Patches making that change
>     to appropriate drivers posted.
>     As we discussed there are cases which are not suitable for such
>     conversion and this infrastructure still provides clear benefits
>     for them.
> 
> Ideally it would be good if this introductory series adding the
> infrastructure makes the 6.9 merge window. There are no dependencies
> on work queued in the IIO tree, so this can go via devicetree
> if the maintainers would prefer. I've had some off list messages
> asking when this would be merged, as there is interest in building
> on it next cycle for other parts of the kernel (where conversion to
> fwnode handling may be less appropriate).

I'll let you take it. For the series:

Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>

I've got some drivers/of/ conversions too, but they are probably next 
cycle at this point.

Rob