On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:49 PM Heikki Krogerus
<heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
I see your point, okay, I will update in v2.
Thanks for your review!
> > > > for (i = 0; i < pmc->num_ports; i++) {
> > > > typec_switch_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_sw);
> > > > typec_mux_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_mux);
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
