[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZjPVs5NJzlMzHYn0@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 21:04:35 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco@...fvision.net>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
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 09:03:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 07:58:26PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> > On 5/2/24 17:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:55:40PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:
..
> > >> 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?
> >
> > I will add this patch to the series I mentioned, so there is a first use
> > case.
>
> Sounds like a good plan.
Ah, note that IIO has already some patches against device property APIs. Maybe
it's already done by Jonathan.
Cc'ed to him.
> > Even if the _available variant is preferred, the other one is more
> > widely used, and having a scoped version will allow for safer code.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists