On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi Julia, thank you very much. > > > > >> In a function, for variables returned by calling of_find_device_by_node(), > > > > Do variables really get returned? > > > > The provided pointer should usually be stored somewhere. > > > > > > Thank you very much, we will consider this situation and submit a next version to fix it. > > > > I don't know what Markus is talking about here, so I'm not sure that a > > change is needed. > > I think Markus means that we need to deal with two situations: > 1, The return value of of_find_device_by_node () is assigned to a variable, such as: > pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np); > 2, The return value of of_find_device_by_node() is assigned to a variable in a structure, such as: > dev->pdev = of_find_device_by_node(args.np); > > So I plan to modify the following to capture both cases: > -local idexpression id; > +expression id; I'm not sure that this is a good idea. There is likely no need for a put in the latter case. julia > ... > id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x) > > > > >> + "ERROR: missing put_device;" > > > >Will change confidence considerations result in another fine-tuning for this message? > > > > > > Thank you, we will change "ERROR" to "WARNING". > > > > I think ERROR is fine. If it is a real positive than it is a real > > problem. Warning is for things that look ugly, but don't have any impact > > on the execution. > > OK, I will keep it. > Thanks. > > Regards, > Wen
