On 21/10/2020 10:33, 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? ACPI version doesn't handle references at all; neither puts() the old nor gets() the new child node.
