Hi Javier,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 10:34:32AM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> On 11/10/2024 07:39, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Hi Javier,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 06:10:27PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> >> Introduce the scoped variant of the
> >> fwnode_for_each_available_child_node() to automatically decrement the
> >> child's refcount when it goes out of scope, removing the need for
> >> explicit calls to fwnode_handle_put().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/property.h | 5 +++++
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h
> >> index 61fc20e5f81f..b37508ecf606 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/property.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/property.h
> >> @@ -168,6 +168,11 @@ struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(
> >> for (child = fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(fwnode, NULL); child;\
> >> child = fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(fwnode, child))
> >>
> >> +#define fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped(fwnode, child) \
> >> + for (struct fwnode_handle *child __free(fwnode_handle) = \
> >> + fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(fwnode, NULL); child; \
> >> + child = fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(fwnode, child))
> >> +
> >
> > On OF, the implementation of the .get_next_child_node() fwnode op is:
> >
> > static struct fwnode_handle *
> > of_fwnode_get_next_child_node(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > struct fwnode_handle *child)
> > {
> > return of_fwnode_handle(of_get_next_available_child(to_of_node(fwnode),
> > to_of_node(child)));
> > }
> >
> > On ACPI we currently have .device_is_available() returning false but that
> > probably should be returning true instead (it's been virtually unused
> > previously).
> >
> > That makes fwnode_get_next_available_child_node() and
> > fwnode_get_next_child_node() equivalent on both ACPI and OF. Presumably
> > creating unavailable nodes would be useless on swnode, too.
> >
> > So my question is: what do we gain by adding all these fwnode_*available()
> > helpers?
> >
> >> struct fwnode_handle *device_get_next_child_node(const struct device *dev,
> >> struct fwnode_handle *child);
> >
>
> Hi Sakari, thanks for your feedback.
>
> I thought that the difference is not in OF (which either way ends up
> calling __of_device_is_available()), but in ACPI.
>
> For fwnode_for_each_child_node(), the ACPI callback is
> acpi_get_next_subnode(), and I don't see that the device_is_available()
> callback is used in that case.
fwnode_get_next_available_child_node() also calls
fwnode_device_is_available() and that returns false on all non-device nodes
right now. As noted above, fwnode_device_is_available() should probably
return true for non-device nodes on ACPI. I'll post a patch.
>
> For fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(),
> fwnode_get_next_available_child_node() is used, which checks
> fwnode_device_is_available(), which then calls device_is_available().
>
> What's the catch?
--
Kind regards,
Sakari Ailus
