From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: "David Lechner" <dlechner@baylibre.com>,
"Jonathan Cameron" <jic23@kernel.org>,
linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
"Frank Rowand" <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Julia Lawall" <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>,
"Nicolas Palix" <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
"Sumera Priyadarsini" <sylphrenadin@gmail.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Nuno Sá" <nuno.sa@analog.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] of: Introduce for_each_child_of_node_scoped() to automate of_node_put() handling
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:17:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240201151700.000038ee@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240131235148.GA2743404-robh@kernel.org>
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:51:48 -0600
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 03:11:01PM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 10:06 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > >
> > > To avoid issues with out of order cleanup, or ambiguity about when the
> > > auto freed data is first instantiated, do it within the for loop definition.
> > >
> > > The disadvantage is that the struct device_node *child variable creation
> > > is not immediately obvious where this is used.
> > > However, in many cases, if there is another definition of
> > > struct device_node *child; the compiler / static analysers will notify us
> > > that it is unused, or uninitialized.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/of.h | 6 ++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
> > > index 50e882ee91da..f822226eac6d 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/of.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/of.h
> > > @@ -1434,6 +1434,12 @@ static inline int of_property_read_s32(const struct device_node *np,
> > > for (child = of_get_next_available_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> > > child = of_get_next_available_child(parent, child))
> > >
> > > +#define for_each_child_of_node_scoped(parent, child) \
> > > + for (struct device_node *child __free(device_node) = \
> > > + of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); \
> > > + child != NULL; \
> > > + child = of_get_next_available_child(parent, child))
> >
> > Doesn't this need to match the initializer (of_get_next_child)?
> > Otherwise it seems like the first node could be a disabled node but no
> > other disabled nodes would be included in the iteration.
> >
> > It seems like we would want two macros, one for each variation,
> > analogous to for_each_child_of_node() and
> > for_each_available_child_of_node().
>
> Yes, but really I'd like these the other way around. 'available' should
> be the default as disabled should really be the same as a node not
> present except for a few cases where it is not.
>
> I bring it up only because if we're changing things then it is a
> convenient time to change this. That's really a side issue to sorting
> out how this new way should work.
Happy to push that forwards by not initially defining the non available version
of this scoped form. So we will just have
for_each_avaiable_child_of_node_scoped()
Short and snappy it isn't but such is life.
Jonathan
>
> Rob
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-01 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-28 16:05 [RFC PATCH 0/5] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-28 16:05 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] of: Add cleanup.h based auto release via __free(device_node) markings Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-28 16:05 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] of: Introduce for_each_child_of_node_scoped() to automate of_node_put() handling Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-28 21:11 ` David Lechner
2024-01-29 6:54 ` Julia Lawall
2024-01-29 11:44 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-31 23:51 ` Rob Herring
2024-02-01 15:17 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2024-02-04 19:56 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-02-04 20:52 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-28 16:05 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] of: unittest: Use for_each_child_of_node_scoped() Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-28 16:05 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: Use for_each_child_node_scoped() Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-28 16:05 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] iio: adc: rcar-gyroadc: use for_each_child_node_scoped() Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-28 18:06 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops Julia Lawall
2024-01-29 11:42 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-29 14:02 ` Julia Lawall
2024-01-29 19:52 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-29 20:29 ` Julia Lawall
2024-01-30 9:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-30 10:26 ` Julia Lawall
2024-01-31 21:38 ` Julia Lawall
2024-02-04 21:08 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-02-04 21:34 ` Julia Lawall
2024-02-05 9:27 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-02-01 11:20 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-01 15:21 ` Jonathan Cameron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240201151700.000038ee@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=Julia.Lawall@inria.fr \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dlechner@baylibre.com \
--cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.palix@imag.fr \
--cc=nuno.sa@analog.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sylphrenadin@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).