Hi Laurent, Am Montag, den 10.03.2014, 20:19 +0100 schrieb Laurent Pinchart: > On Friday 07 March 2014 18:40:54 Philipp Zabel wrote: > > While we look at of_graph_get_next_endpoint(), could you explain the > > reason behind the extra reference count increase on the prev node: > > > > /* > > * Avoid dropping prev node refcount to 0 when getting the next > > * child below. > > */ > > of_node_get(prev); > > > > This unfortunately makes using the function in for_each style macros a > > hassle. If that part wasn't there and all users that want to keep using > > prev after the call were expected to increase refcount themselves, > > we could have a > > > > #define of_graph_for_each_endpoint(parent, endpoint) \ > > for (endpoint = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(parent, NULL); \ > > endpoint != NULL; \ > > endpoint = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(parent, endpoint)) > > I don't know what the exact design decision was (Sylwester might know), but I > suspect it's mostly about historical reasons. I see no reason that would > prevent modifying the current behaviour to make a for-each loop easier to > implement. Thanks, I'll include a patch to change this in the next round, then. regards Philipp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
