On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 07:24:43AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 5:49 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 03:41:00PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
...
> > > v3:
> > > - Keep existing style in deadprops loop
> >
> > Not sure where exactly in the code that one, but...
>
> That was your previous comment...
I admit that I haven't heard about cleanup.h that time.
...
> > > int __of_remove_property(struct device_node *np, struct property *prop)
> > > {
> > > - struct property **next;
> > > -
> > > - for (next = &np->properties; *next; next = &(*next)->next) {
> > > - if (*next == prop)
> > > - break;
> > > + if (__of_remove_property_from_list(&np->properties, prop)) {
> > > + /* Found the property, add it to deadprops list */
> > > + prop->next = np->deadprops;
> > > + np->deadprops = prop;
> > > + return 0;
> > > }
> > > - if (*next == NULL)
> > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > -
> > > - /* found the node */
> > > - *next = prop->next;
> > > - prop->next = np->deadprops;
> > > - np->deadprops = prop;
> > >
> > > - return 0;
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > }
> >
> >
> > ...if it's this one, I don't see how it's better than
> >
> > if (!__of_remove_property_from_list(&np->properties, prop))
> > return -ENODEV;
>
> Because this way doesn't work well when we move the spinlock in here.
> Maybe cleanup.h will help, but I'm not going to do that now. If we do,
> then I'll do it for the whole subsystem/file.
Fair enough.
Although we may also use goto approach in the next patch. Anyway,
I leave it to you for what you think is the best.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
