On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 12:29:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:23 PM Heikki Krogerus
> <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:09:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > device_get_next_child_node() bumps a reference counting of a returned variable.
>
> ...
>
> > > err_remove_ports:
> > > + fwnode_handle_put(fwnode);
> >
> > Wouldn't it be more clear to do that in the condition that jumps to
> > this lable?
>
> In this case it doesn't matter. As a general pattern, no, because this
> will help to keep this in mind in complex error handling ladders. That
> said, I prefer my variant unless there is a strong opinion to move it
> into the conditional.
Now it looks like you are releasing the mux device fwnode instead of a
port fwnode because everything else related to the ports is destroyed
in below loop. That's too confusing.
Just handle it inside the condition, and the whole thing becomes
clear.
> > > for (i = 0; i < pmc->num_ports; i++) {
> > > typec_switch_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_sw);
> > > typec_mux_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_mux);
--
heikki
