> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Jonathan Cameron (16): > > > device property: Move fwnode_handle_put() into property.h > > > device property: Add cleanup.h based fwnode_handle_put() scope based cleanup. > > > device property: Introduce device_for_each_child_node_scoped() > > > iio: adc: max11410: Use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() > > > iio: addac: ad74413r: Use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() > > > iio: dac: ltc2688: Use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() > > > iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: Switch from of specific handing to fwnode based. > > > iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: Use devm_* and dev_err_probe() to simplify probe > > > iio: adc: ad7124: Switch from of specific to fwnode based property handling > > > iio: adc: ad7292: Switch from of specific to fwnode property handling > > > iio: adc: ad7192: Convert from of specific to fwnode property handling > > > iio: accel: mma8452: Switch from of specific to fwnode property handling. > > > iio: accel: fxls8962af: Switch from of specific to fwnode based properties. > > > iio: adc: hx711: Switch from of specific to fwnode property handling. > > > iio: temp: ltc2983: Use __free(fwnode_handle) and device_for_each_node_scoped() > > > iio: adc: rzg2l_adc: Use device_for_each_child_node_scoped() > > > > You are mixing the two different handlers in this series, right? How > > about 2 different ones, one for each? Or do they start to conflict? > > It's one handler in here but two usecases so they are dependent. > First the basic __free(fwnode_handle) then the device_for_each_child_node_scoped() > which uses it internally.. The patches that mention DT are conversions over > to fwnode_handle that incorporate using device_for_each_child_node() > > As for the ltc2983, there are users of just the __free(fwnode_handle) but in > IIO at least, far more users of it via device_for_each_child_node_scoped(). > So not that useful to split the series :( > > The device tree equivalent is a separate series not included here. > That just got the necessary DT maintainer tags RB from Rob Herring today. > If we get a little more time (i.e. an rc8) this cycle, it would be > good to get that in place as well - I'll queue it up for linux-next today. > This is the DT series. > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240301223942.GA3179769-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t Given there were no issues raised with the DT equivalent patches that Rob took, I think I was being overly cautions. Ah well, I'm sure I'll veer the other way next time :) Anyhow, I'm going to put these at the top of my tree (based on v6.9-rc1) so that I can tag the first couple for anyone who wants them for other trees. (a lazy way to get an immutable branch given I'm rebasing the togreg tree anyway) Note that means I'm retiring the two separate feeder branches and going back to togreg alone (the one linux-next picks up). So please ignore this PULL request as it will be superseded by a fresh one for 6.10. For those that want it (who happen to be reading this thread) im-tag-device_for_each_child_node_scoped() and includes patches 1-3 of this pull request. Thanks, Jonathan > > Jonathan > > > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > >
