On 5/2/24 17:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:55:40PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: >> Add a scoped version of fwnode_for_each_child_node() following >> the approach recently taken for other loops that handle child nodes like >> for_each_child_of_node_scoped() or device_for_each_child_node_scoped(), >> which are based on the __free() auto cleanup handler to remove the need >> for fwnode_handle_put() on early loop exits. > > Why not _available variant? I believe most of the code should use that. > That is a good point. I just took a look at users of the _available variant and at least the LTC2992 (which I can actually test) does not call fwnode_handle_put() in one error path, so it could already profit from a scoped version. I will send a new series with the _available variant and a first use case for the LTC2992. >> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> This macro has been tested with a patch series that has not been >> applied yet and is under discussion in input [1], which makes use of the >> non-scoped version of the loop. > > So, why should we apply a dead code? > I will add this patch to the series I mentioned, so there is a first use case. Even if the _available variant is preferred, the other one is more widely used, and having a scoped version will allow for safer code. >> Based on linux-next (next-20240502). > > Use --base instead of this. Ah, and you do, so no need to have this comment. > Ack. >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-input/20240422-feature-ts_virtobj_patch-v9-0-acf118d12a8a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1] > Thank you for the review and best regards, Javier Carrasco
