On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:25:51 +0200 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think if the helper was > > named "mtd_to_of_node()" that would be much clearer for everyone and > > of_node_get(mtd_to_of_node(mtd)) would be the way to retain a reference > > on the OF node. > > > > I don't think creating a helper for that would be better because I > > really prefer seeing the of_node_get() in the code, meaning an > > of_node_put() will be needed at some point. > > Again, it's mainly a matter of consistency. If people are used to call > of_node_put() when a function returns a device_node object, then it's > better to do the same in the MTD framework. Just to be clear. I still want to queue this patch for 4.19-rc4. All I'm saying is that we should consider changing the behavior of mtd_get_of_node() (and friends) at some point, otherwise we might see other bugs like this one in the future. On a side note, we should probably also call of_node_get/put() when someone updates mtd->dev.of_node through the mtd_set_of_node() helper, and call of_node_put() when an mtd device is unregistered.
