On 27/08/2024 12:55, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> So it's perfectly fine to have:
>
> static int __init rcar_gen4_sysc_pd_init(void)
> {
> struct device_node *np __free(device_node) = NULL;
> struct rcar_gen4_pm_domains *domains;
> const struct rcar_gen4_sysc_info *info;
> const struct of_device_id *match;
> void __iomem *base;
> unsigned int i;
> int error;
>
> np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL,
> rcar_gen4_sysc_matches, &match);
> if (!np)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> ...
> }
It is not perfectly fine because it does not match the preference of
having declaration with the constructor. See responses from Linus.
>
> But my first suggestion:
>
> static int __init rcar_gen4_sysc_pd_init(void)
> {
> struct device_node *np __free(device_node) =
> of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL,
> rcar_gen4_sysc_matches, &match);
> struct rcar_gen4_pm_domains *domains;
> const struct rcar_gen4_sysc_info *info;
> const struct of_device_id *match;
> void __iomem *base;
> unsigned int i;
> int error;
>
> if (!np)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> ...
> }
>
> is safer w.r.t. to future modification.
Indeed, sure, I will re-write it above.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
