From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15CE2C433DF for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:04:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E3321D7B for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:04:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2393449AbgJTLEw (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:04:52 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:61519 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2392468AbgJTLEv (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:04:51 -0400 IronPort-SDR: tmvhHJXz4j9S7eLGJ109d/HszHGNBQmwkAgydkDiUwqFkwL9E0sAXIAoqUhxRir+bz8JcDOCOB 1LyfMKs0flFg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9779"; a="228821020" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,396,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="228821020" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Oct 2020 04:04:51 -0700 IronPort-SDR: npN9kWgKjjJnhfEQWH/SuWkWkZvWHJ/nF9dGRx4hTzeFThuwV6gRcELF8qSsP00wi4AyMLXU3+ Z/9eWFYWUDvA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,396,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="422472099" Received: from kuha.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.162]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 20 Oct 2020 04:04:44 -0700 Received: by kuha.fi.intel.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 14:04:44 +0300 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 14:04:44 +0300 From: Heikki Krogerus To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Sakari Ailus , Daniel Scally , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux.walleij@linaro.org, prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com, kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org, robh@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, pmladek@suse.com, mchehab@kernel.org, tian.shu.qiu@intel.com, bingbu.cao@intel.com, yong.zhi@intel.com, rafael@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kitakar@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] software_node: Add helper function to unregister arrays of software_nodes ordered parent to child Message-ID: <20201020110444.GN1667571@kuha.fi.intel.com> References: <20201019225903.14276-1-djrscally@gmail.com> <20201019225903.14276-2-djrscally@gmail.com> <20201020100510.GS13341@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> <20201020110155.GH4077@smile.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201020110155.GH4077@smile.fi.intel.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 02:01:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:05:10PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:58:55PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > > > Software nodes that are children of another software node should be > > > unregistered before their parent. To allow easy unregistering of an array > > > of software_nodes ordered parent to child, add a helper function to loop > > > over and unregister nodes in such an array in reverse order. > > ... > > > > + * software_node_unregister_nodes_reverse - Unregister an array of software > > > + * nodes in reverse order. > > > + * @nodes: Array of software nodes to be unregistered. > > > + * > > > + * NOTE: The same warning applies as with software_node_unregister_nodes. > > > + * Unless you are _sure_ that the array of nodes is ordered parent to child > > > + * it is wiser to remove them individually in the correct order. > > > > Could the default order in software_node_unregister_nodes() be reversed > > instead? There are no users so this should be easy to change. > > > > Doing this only one way may require enforcing the registration order in > > software_node_register_nodes(), but the end result would be safer. > > > > What do you think? > > Will work for me (I would also hear Heikki). Sounds reasonable to me. thanks, -- heikki