On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:10:57 +0200 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 07:25:29PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Similar to recently propose for_each_child_of_node_scoped() this > > new version of the loop macro instantiates a new local > > struct fwnode_handle * that uses the __free(fwnode_handle) auto > > cleanup handling so that if a reference to a node is held on early > > exit from the loop the reference will be released. If the loop > > runs to completion, the child pointer will be NULL and no action will > > be taken. > > > > The reason this is useful is that it removes the need for > > fwnode_handle_put() on early loop exits. If there is a need > > to retain the reference, then return_ptr(child) or no_free_ptr(child) > > may be used to safely disable the auto cleanup. > > ... > > > +#define device_for_each_child_node_scoped(dev, child)\ > > Missing space before backslash, but I would rather to make them to be TABed to > the same column. Oops. I spotted I messed this up bug clearly failed to fix it before sending out. > > > + for (struct fwnode_handle *child __free(fwnode_handle) = \ > > + device_get_next_child_node(dev, NULL); child; \ > > Please, move child to a separate line, so we will easily see the all three > parameters of the for-loop. That said, indent the assignment to the right as > well. Indent makes sense - but (to save another respin) how far? Next tab stop will be a bit random looking but I guess nothing else makes more sense. > > > + child = device_get_next_child_node(dev, child)) > > With the above addressed, > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, >
