On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 05:35:46PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 05:10:23PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 2:35 AM Sakari Ailus > > <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 09:48:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > As to_of_node() suggests and the way the code in the OF and software node > > > > back ends actually uses the fwnode handle, it may be constified. Do this > > > > for good. > > > > > > How? > > > > > > If the fwnode is const, then the struct it contains must be presumed to be > > > const, too. > > > > Why? The idea is that we are not updating the fwnode, but the container. > > The container may or may not be const. It's orthogonal, no? > > As you wrote: may or may not. The stricter requirement, i.e. const, must be > thus followed. I think it would be fine (after adding a comment on what is > being done) if you *know* the container struct is not const. But that is > not the case here. But even with the original code one may not guarantee that. How the original code works or prevents of using a const container against non-const fwnode pointer? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
