On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 01:28:55PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 01:18:31PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 01:01:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:27:53PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:57:08PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > ... > > > > > > * fwnode_get_next_child_node - Return the next child node handle for a node > > > > > * @fwnode: Firmware node to find the next child node for. > > > > > * @child: Handle to one of the node's child nodes or a %NULL handle. > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Caller is responsible to call fwnode_handle_put() on the returned fwnode > > > > > + * pointer. > > > > > > > > The loop itself will also put the child node, so this is only relevant > > > > outside the loop. > > > > > > Yes and this is exactly what people stumbled over. Hence this note. > > > This call per se doesn't loop, so I didn't get how your comment can > > > be transformed to anything here. Care to elaborate a bit more on > > > what I have to add here or reword? > > > > Ah, indeed. This is achieved by putting the previous child. Generally this > > function is used via the loop helper macro and not called directly, hence > > the documentation there matters the most. Those functions appear to be > > without any documentation though. > > So, what should I do? Good question. How about this text: The caller is responsible for calling fwnode_handle_put() put on the returned fwnode. Note that this function also puts a reference to @child unconditionally. This is actually done by the firmware specific implementation, namely on OF and at least should be done on swnode. A second patch to document the fwnode iterator macros would be nice. -- Sakari Ailus
