On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:38:31 +0200 Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Boris, > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 10 Sep 2018 > 15:25:51 +0200: > > > On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:14:23 +0200 > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi Boris, > > > > > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 10 Sep 2018 > > > 14:53:12 +0200: > > > > > > > Hi Miquel, > > > > > > > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 16:38:24 +0200 > > > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I forgot to add Rafal which I know worked a lot on the parsers. > > > > > > > > > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Fri, 7 Sep 2018 > > > > > 16:35:54 +0200: > > > > > > > > > > > While at first mtd_part_of_parse() would just call > > > > > > of_get_chil_by_name(), it has been edited to first try to get the OF > > > > > > node thanks to mtd_get_of_node() and fallback on > > > > > > of_get_child_by_name(). > > > > > > > > > > > > A of_node_put() was a bit below in the code, to balance the > > > > > > of_get_child_by_name(). However, despite its name, mtd_get_of_node() > > > > > > does not take a reference on the OF node. > > > > > > > > That's probably something we should patch at some point, but that > > > > implies patching all mtd_get_of_node() users at the same time, so let's > > > > keep that for later. > > > > > > > > BTW, if mtd_get_of_node() was actually retaining a reference, you > > > > would miss an of_node_put() in the !mtd_is_partition(master) case. > > > > > > I think there is a misunderstanding here: mtd_get_of_node() is not > > > retaining a reference, and I do not think it should! It is by design a > > > helper to shortcut from the MTD device to the related FW node. Maybe > > > calling it differently than "get" would be definitely less prone to > > > errors. Maybe mtd_to_of_node() would be better? > > > > Yes, the name is misleading for sure. But consistency is good, and > > (almost?) all DT helpers that return a device_node retain a reference > > to this node before returning it, so I think it would be a good thing > > to do the same in the MTD framework. > > Fine by me, I'll patch all the places where it's used, but you can > still take this patch as a fix for now. > > > > > Also, I'm not a big fan of the mtd_to_of_node() for this kind of > > function. It seems to imply that the mtd device is inheriting from > > device_node, which is not really the case, it's just an association > > relationship. > > Ok > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a simple helper hiding > > > > > > some pointer logic to retrieve the OF node related to an MTD > > > > > > device. People often used it this way: > > > > > > > > > > > > of_node_put(mtd_get_of_node(<mtd>)). > > > > > > > > I don't get your point. Are you saying other places in the code are > > > > doing the wrong thing? Should we fix them too? > > > > > > No, other places are doing the right thing. > > > > Hm, okay. Then your example is not well chosen, because you seem to put > > the return of mtd_get_of_node(<mtd>), which contradicts what you > > explain in the previous sentence. I guess somewhere in the same path you > > have an of_node_get(mtd_get_of_node(<mtd>)) which retains the reference > > and explains why calling of_node_put(mtd_get_of_node(<mtd>)) is > > required. > > > > Maybe you can just drop this example. > > Mhhh. Maybe I should s/of_node_put/of_node_get/ in the example? I > want to show why (currently) no of_node_put() is needed after a mtd_get_of_node(). > > This examples shows what people do with this helper, ie. calling > of_node_get() on the returned OF node to actually retain a reference > of the retrieve object. Or you just say that mtd_get_of_node() does not retain a reference to the device_node object it returns and that should be enough ;-).
