linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v5 10/10] net: gianfar: Use device_get_child_node_count

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]

Message-ID: <Z8WXqgxgFQC8b8vC@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 13:51:06 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	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>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v5 10/10] net: gianfar: Use
 device_get_child_node_count_named()

On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:34:49PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> We can avoid open-coding the loop construct which counts firmware child
> nodes with a specific name by using the newly added
> device_get_child_node_count_named().
> 
> The gianfar driver has such open-coded loop. Replace it with the
> device_get_child_node_count_named().

...

> It's fair to tell the pros and cons of this patch.
> The simplification is there, but it's not a big one. It comes with a cost
> of getting the property.h included in this driver which currently uses
> exclusively the of_* APIs.

I think it's a good step to the right direction. We might convert the rest
(at least I don't see much impediments while briefly looking into the code).

...

What about the second loop (in gfar_of_init)?
I mean perhaps we want to have fwnode_for_each_named_child_node()
and its device variant that may be also reused in the IIO code and here.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko