On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 10:06 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > To avoid issues with out of order cleanup, or ambiguity about when the > auto freed data is first instantiated, do it within the for loop definition. > > The disadvantage is that the struct device_node *child variable creation > is not immediately obvious where this is used. > However, in many cases, if there is another definition of > struct device_node *child; the compiler / static analysers will notify us > that it is unused, or uninitialized. > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > include/linux/of.h | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h > index 50e882ee91da..f822226eac6d 100644 > --- a/include/linux/of.h > +++ b/include/linux/of.h > @@ -1434,6 +1434,12 @@ static inline int of_property_read_s32(const struct device_node *np, > for (child = of_get_next_available_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \ > child = of_get_next_available_child(parent, child)) > > +#define for_each_child_of_node_scoped(parent, child) \ > + for (struct device_node *child __free(device_node) = \ > + of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); \ > + child != NULL; \ > + child = of_get_next_available_child(parent, child)) Doesn't this need to match the initializer (of_get_next_child)? Otherwise it seems like the first node could be a disabled node but no other disabled nodes would be included in the iteration. It seems like we would want two macros, one for each variation, analogous to for_each_child_of_node() and for_each_available_child_of_node(). > + > #define for_each_of_cpu_node(cpu) \ > for (cpu = of_get_next_cpu_node(NULL); cpu != NULL; \ > cpu = of_get_next_cpu_node(cpu)) > -- > 2.43.0 > >
