On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 04:50:15PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 03:04:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 03:13:16PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I do not have a specific use case in mind, however the implementation > > behavior does not match the stated one, and so it makes sense to get it > > fixed. Otherwise callers would have to add checks to conditionally drop > > the reference to "child" argument in certain cases, which will > > complicate caller's code. > > Perhaps this should be somewhere between the cover letter / commit message? OK, I thought that it was pretty obvious, but I will expand the commit message to include this. > > > > > Add missing fwnode_handle_put() calls to restore the documented > > > > behavior. > > ... > > > > > { > > > > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode) || > > > > > > Unneeded check as fwnode_has_op() has it already. > > > > Yes, it has, but that is not obvious nor it is a documented behavior of > > fwnode_has_op(). > > Would like to document that then? > > > It also different semantics: it checks whether a fwnode > > implements a given operation, not whether fwnode is valid. That check is > > incidental in fwnode_has_op(). > > I kinda disagree on this. The invalid fwnode may not have any operations, > so it's implied and will always be like that. Yeah, it is clear that we disagree. I agree that invalid fwnode will not have an operation defined, still checking whether an operation is supported and whether a node is invalid or not are 2 different operations to me. But we do not need to argue further. > > > They all are macros so compiler should collapse duplicate checks, but if > > you feel really strongly about it I can drop IS_ERR_OR_NULL() check. > > Yes, please drop it and rather we want fwnode_has_op() to be documented with > main purpose and guaranteed side effect (the latter makes no need of > duplication that I pointed out). OK. > > > > > + !fwnode_has_op(fwnode, get_next_child_node)) { > > > > + fwnode_handle_put(child); > > > > + return NULL; > > > > + } > > ... > > > > > @@ 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()? > > > > Because if you rely on check in fwnode_get_next_child_node() you would > > not know if it returned NULL because there are no more children or > > because the node is invalid. In the latter case you can't dereference > > fwnode->secondary. > > Yes, so, how does it contradict my proposal? I guess I misunderstood your proposal then. Could you please explain it in more detail? Thanks. -- Dmitry