On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 09:39:34PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> The documentation to various API calls that locate children for a given
> fwnode (such as fwnode_get_next_available_child_node() or
> device_get_next_child_node()) states that the reference to the node
> passed in "child" argument is dropped unconditionally, however the
> change that added checks for the main node to be NULL or error pointer
> broke this promise.
This commit message doesn't explain a use case. Hence it might be just
a documentation issue, please elaborate.
> Add missing fwnode_handle_put() calls to restore the documented
> behavior.
...
While at it, please fix the kernel-doc (missing Return section).
> {
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode) ||
Unneeded check as fwnode_has_op() has it already.
> + !fwnode_has_op(fwnode, get_next_child_node)) {
> + fwnode_handle_put(child);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> return fwnode_call_ptr_op(fwnode, get_next_child_node, child);
Now it's useless to call the macro, you can simply take the direct call.
> }
...
> @@ struct fwnode_handle *device_get_next_child_node(const struct device *dev,
> const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = dev_fwnode(dev);
> struct fwnode_handle *next;
> - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode))
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode)) {
> + fwnode_handle_put(child);
> return NULL;
> + }
> /* Try to find a child in primary fwnode */
> next = fwnode_get_next_child_node(fwnode, child);
So, why not just moving the original check (w/o dropping the reference) here?
Wouldn't it have the same effect w/o explicit call to the fwnode_handle_put()?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
