On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:25:28AM +0100, Dan Scally wrote: > On 20/10/2020 14:31, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:58:57PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > >> + return software_node_get(&c->fwnode); > > I believe similarly, the function should drop the reference to the previous > > node, and not expect the caller to do this. The OF equivalent does the > > same. > > I think I prefer it this way myself, since the alternative is having to > explicitly call *_node_get() on a returned child if you want to keep it > but also keep iterating. But I agree that it's important to take a > consistent approach. I'll add that too; this will mean > swnode_graph_find_next_port() and > software_node_graph_get_next_endpoint() in patch 4 of this series will > need changing slightly to square away their references. What about ACPI case? Does it square? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
