On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:38:31 +0100 (CET) Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:52:46 +0200 > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 12:44:28PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > The equivalent device_for_each_child_node_scoped() series for > > > > fwnode will be queued up in IIO for the merge window shortly as > > > > it has gathered sufficient tags. Hopefully the precdent set there > > > > for the approach will reassure people that instantiating the > > > > child variable inside the macro definition is the best approach. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240217164249.921878-1-jic23@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > v2: Andy suggested most of the original converted set should move to > > > > generic fwnode / property.h handling. Within IIO that was > > > > a reasonable observation given we've been trying to move away from > > > > firmware specific handling for some time. Patches making that change > > > > to appropriate drivers posted. > > > > As we discussed there are cases which are not suitable for such > > > > conversion and this infrastructure still provides clear benefits > > > > for them. > > > > > > > iio: adc: rcar-gyroadc: use for_each_available_child_node_scoped() > > > > > > Is this the only one so far? Or do we have more outside of IIO? > > > > > > I'm fine with the code if OF maintainers think it's useful. > > > My concern is to make as many as possible drivers to be converted to > > > use fwnode instead of OF one. > > > > > Julia wrote a coccinelle script > > __free() cases > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2401291455430.8649@hadrien/ > > The script doesn't use fwnode. It gets rid of of_node_put, asssuming that > someone has already set that up for __free. Question I was addressing was a few lines up. "Or do we have more outside of IIO?" I should have addressed it immediately after the question + not sent half an answer :( > > julia
