[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <77e5166f-37f6-4931-b071-1c926cfe707c@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:07:49 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tq-group.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] nvmem: imx-ocotp: Support accessing controller for
i.MX8M Nano
On 31/01/2025 14:50, Alexander Stein wrote:
>>> +
>>> + while (!of_parse_phandle_with_args(child, "access-controllers",
>>> + "#access-controller-cells",
>>> + idx++, &args)) {
>>> + of_node_put(args.np);
>>> + if (args.np != dev->of_node)
>>
>> You are using args.np after dropping the reference.
>
> Indeed, but is it really a problem? The args.np pointer is still the same.
> So the comparison is unaffected.
>
> Both branches need to drop the reference, no?
Ah, indeed, you do not use the reference except pointer comparison. It's
fine, maybe a bit less usual, but as you mentioned other alternative
also does not look good, so fine for me.
> But the following looks awefull as well.
>> if (args.np != dev->of_node) {
>> of_node_put(args.np);
>> continue;
>> }
>> of_node_put(args.np);
>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists