On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 8:49 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v6: new patch
> drivers/base/property.c | 2 +-
> drivers/base/swnode.c | 2 +-
> drivers/of/property.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/fwnode.h | 2 +-
> include/linux/property.h | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/property.c b/drivers/base/property.c
> index 36401cfe432c..1ad4b37cd312 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/property.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/property.c
> @@ -776,7 +776,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_get_named_child_node);
> *
> * Returns the fwnode handle.
> */
> -struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_handle_get(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> +struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_handle_get(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> {
> if (!fwnode_has_op(fwnode, get))
> return fwnode;
> diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c
> index b0bbd1805970..84a11008ffb8 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c
> @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(property_entries_free);
> /* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
> /* fwnode operations */
>
> -static struct fwnode_handle *software_node_get(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> +static struct fwnode_handle *software_node_get(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> {
> struct swnode *swnode = to_swnode(fwnode);
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/property.c b/drivers/of/property.c
> index 9a50ad25906e..8d06282af8e4 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/property.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/property.c
> @@ -858,7 +858,7 @@ struct device_node *of_graph_get_remote_node(const struct device_node *node,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_graph_get_remote_node);
>
> -static struct fwnode_handle *of_fwnode_get(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> +static struct fwnode_handle *of_fwnode_get(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> {
> return of_fwnode_handle(of_node_get(to_of_node(fwnode)));
> }
> diff --git a/include/linux/fwnode.h b/include/linux/fwnode.h
> index 9a81c4410b9f..a94bd47192a3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fwnode.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fwnode.h
> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ struct fwnode_reference_args {
> * zero on success, a negative error code otherwise.
> */
> struct fwnode_operations {
> - struct fwnode_handle *(*get)(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
> + struct fwnode_handle *(*get)(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
> void (*put)(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
> bool (*device_is_available)(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
> const void *(*device_get_match_data)(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h
> index fc24d45632eb..c631ee7fd161 100644
> --- a/include/linux/property.h
> +++ b/include/linux/property.h
> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_get_named_child_node(
> struct fwnode_handle *device_get_named_child_node(struct device *dev,
> const char *childname);
>
> -struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_handle_get(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
> +struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_handle_get(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
> void fwnode_handle_put(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
>
> int fwnode_irq_get(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, unsigned int index);
> --
Why is 0-day complaining about this one?
