On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 01:15:55AM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote: > pt., 15 lip 2022 o 21:42 Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:36:29PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:50:09AM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote: > > > > This patch adds a new generic routine fwnode_dev_node_match > > > > that can be used e.g. as a callback for class_find_device(). > > > > It searches for the struct device corresponding to a > > > > struct fwnode_handle by iterating over device and > > > > its parents. > > > > > > Implementation > > > 1) misses the word 'parent'; > > I'm not sure. We don't necessarily look for parent device(s). We start > with a struct device and if it matches the fwnode, success is returned > immediately. Only otherwise we iterate over parent devices to find a > match. Yes, you iterate over parents. 0 iterations doesn't change semantics of all cases, right? > > > 2) located outside of the group of fwnode APIs operating on parents. > > I can shift it right below fwnode_get_nth_parent if you prefer. Yes, please do. > > > I would suggest to rename to fwnode_get_next_parent_node() and place > > > near to fwnode_get_next_parent_dev() (either before or after, where > > > it makes more sense). > > > > And matching function will be after that: > > > > return fwnode_get_next_parent_node(...) != NULL; > > > > Think about it. Maybe current solution is good enough, just needs better > > naming (fwnode_match_parent_node()? Dunno). > > > > P.S. Actually _get maybe misleading as we won't bump reference counting, > > rather _find? > > How about the following name: > fwnode_find_dev_match() > ? fwnode_find_parent_dev_match() LGTM, thanks! You iterate over parents. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
