[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZjOybob3wJjisuBL@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 18:34:06 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco@...fvision.net>
Cc: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] device property: introduce
fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped()
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:55:40PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> Add a scoped version of fwnode_for_each_child_node() following
> the approach recently taken for other loops that handle child nodes like
> for_each_child_of_node_scoped() or device_for_each_child_node_scoped(),
> which are based on the __free() auto cleanup handler to remove the need
> for fwnode_handle_put() on early loop exits.
Why not _available variant? I believe most of the code should use that.
> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco@...fvision.net>
> ---
> This macro has been tested with a patch series that has not been
> applied yet and is under discussion in input [1], which makes use of the
> non-scoped version of the loop.
So, why should we apply a dead code?
> Based on linux-next (next-20240502).
Use --base instead of this. Ah, and you do, so no need to have this comment.
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-input/20240422-feature-ts_virtobj_patch-v9-0-acf118d12a8a@wolfvision.net/ [1]
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists