On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:33:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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? In ACPI, we seem to assume these nodes are always there and thus don't need reference counting. -- Sakari Ailus
