[PATCH] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Using for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped()

[PATCH] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Using for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped()

[Zhang Zekun]

for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node
automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and
remove the device_node clean up code.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 11 +++--------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
index aeafc74181f0..03733101e231 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
@@ -1594,7 +1594,6 @@ static int __init arch_timer_mem_of_init(struct device_node *np)
 {
 	struct arch_timer_mem *timer_mem;
 	struct arch_timer_mem_frame *frame;
-	struct device_node *frame_node;
 	struct resource res;
 	int ret = -EINVAL;
 	u32 rate;
@@ -1608,33 +1607,29 @@ static int __init arch_timer_mem_of_init(struct device_node *np)
 	timer_mem->cntctlbase = res.start;
 	timer_mem->size = resource_size(&res);
 
-	for_each_available_child_of_node(np, frame_node) {
+	for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped(np, frame_node) {
 		u32 n;
 		struct arch_timer_mem_frame *frame;
 
 		if (of_property_read_u32(frame_node, "frame-number", &n)) {
 			pr_err(FW_BUG "Missing frame-number.\n");
-			of_node_put(frame_node);
 			goto out;
 		}
 		if (n >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES) {
 			pr_err(FW_BUG "Wrong frame-number, only 0-%u are permitted.\n",
 			       ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES - 1);
-			of_node_put(frame_node);
 			goto out;
 		}
 		frame = &timer_mem->frame[n];
 
 		if (frame->valid) {
 			pr_err(FW_BUG "Duplicated frame-number.\n");
-			of_node_put(frame_node);
 			goto out;
 		}
 
-		if (of_address_to_resource(frame_node, 0, &res)) {
-			of_node_put(frame_node);
+		if (of_address_to_resource(frame_node, 0, &res))
 			goto out;
-		}
+
 		frame->cntbase = res.start;
 		frame->size = resource_size(&res);
 
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Using for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped()

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 07/08/2024 09:46, Zhang Zekun wrote:
> for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node
> automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and
> remove the device_node clean up code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com>
> ---

This patch LGTM.

Mar[ck] are you fine with it ?


-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Using for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped()

[Mark Rutland]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:27:16AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 07/08/2024 09:46, Zhang Zekun wrote:
> > for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node
> > automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and
> > remove the device_node clean up code.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com>
> > ---
> 
> This patch LGTM.
> 
> Mar[ck] are you fine with it ?

Looks sound to me:

Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

Mark.

> 
> 
> -- 
> <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
> 
> Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Using for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped()

[Marc Zyngier]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 09:27:16 +0100,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> On 07/08/2024 09:46, Zhang Zekun wrote:
> > for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node
> > automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and
> > remove the device_node clean up code.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com>
> > ---
> 
> This patch LGTM.
> 
> Mar[ck] are you fine with it ?

Yes, this looks OK to me.

Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Using for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped()

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 07/08/2024 09:46, Zhang Zekun wrote:
> for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node
> automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and
> remove the device_node clean up code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com>
> ---

Applied, thanks

-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[tip: timers/core] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Using for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped()

[tip-bot2 for Zhang Zekun]

The following commit has been merged into the timers/core branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     a7456d7d1b8e781fdaa16c10947bd2363c6fd342
Gitweb:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/a7456d7d1b8e781fdaa16c10947bd2363c6fd342
Author:        Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com>
AuthorDate:    Wed, 07 Aug 2024 15:46:55 +08:00
Committer:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
CommitterDate: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 14:49:20 +02:00

clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Using for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped()

for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node
automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and
remove the device_node clean up code.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240807074655.52157-1-zhangzekun11@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 11 +++--------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
index aeafc74..0373310 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
@@ -1594,7 +1594,6 @@ static int __init arch_timer_mem_of_init(struct device_node *np)
 {
 	struct arch_timer_mem *timer_mem;
 	struct arch_timer_mem_frame *frame;
-	struct device_node *frame_node;
 	struct resource res;
 	int ret = -EINVAL;
 	u32 rate;
@@ -1608,33 +1607,29 @@ static int __init arch_timer_mem_of_init(struct device_node *np)
 	timer_mem->cntctlbase = res.start;
 	timer_mem->size = resource_size(&res);
 
-	for_each_available_child_of_node(np, frame_node) {
+	for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped(np, frame_node) {
 		u32 n;
 		struct arch_timer_mem_frame *frame;
 
 		if (of_property_read_u32(frame_node, "frame-number", &n)) {
 			pr_err(FW_BUG "Missing frame-number.\n");
-			of_node_put(frame_node);
 			goto out;
 		}
 		if (n >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES) {
 			pr_err(FW_BUG "Wrong frame-number, only 0-%u are permitted.\n",
 			       ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES - 1);
-			of_node_put(frame_node);
 			goto out;
 		}
 		frame = &timer_mem->frame[n];
 
 		if (frame->valid) {
 			pr_err(FW_BUG "Duplicated frame-number.\n");
-			of_node_put(frame_node);
 			goto out;
 		}
 
-		if (of_address_to_resource(frame_node, 0, &res)) {
-			of_node_put(frame_node);
+		if (of_address_to_resource(frame_node, 0, &res))
 			goto out;
-		}
+
 		frame->cntbase = res.start;
 		frame->size = resource_size(&res);