Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] device property: Add cleanup.h based fwnode_handle_put() scope based cleanup.

[Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:22:45 +0000
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:58:03 +0000
> Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 02:46:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 12:36:46PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:    
> > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 11:42:06AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:    
> > > 
> > > ...
> > >     
> > > > Hmm. In that case I'd rather make fwnode_handle_put() and similar trivial
> > > > functions macros.    
> > > 
> > > This will kill the type-checking opportunity, so I'm against this move.    
> > 
> > Then it could be made static inline and moved to the header. I suppose for
> > modern compilers there should be no difference in between the two
> > optimisation-wise.
> >   
> 
> Sure - will be a bit fiddly as this is only worth doing if we drop
> the internal check that buried several macros deep.

Not enough coffee yesterday. We can just move the the existing
fwnode_handle_put() to property.h as that includes fwnode.h has
all the definitions in it which we need to be able to see.

I think that should be uncontroversial?

Jonathan

> 
> 1. rename existing fwnode_handle_put() to __fwnode_handle_put()
> 2. Make __fwnode_handle_put() call a new set of macros
> #define fwnode_has_op_nocheck(fwnode, op) \
> 	(fwnode)->ops && (fwnode)->ops->op
> 
> #define fwnode_call_void_op_nocheck(fwnode, op, .... \
> 	do {
> 		if (fwnode_had_op_nocheck(fwnode, op)) \
> 			(fwnode)->ops->op(fwnode, ## __VA_ARGS__);
> 	} while (false);
> 
> 3. Add new
> static inline fwnode_handle_put(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> {
> 	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode))
> 		__fwnode_handle_put(fwnode);
> }
> 
> Or something like that.
> 
> I'm fine with doing that if conclusion is the complexity of the change
> is worth it.
> 
> Jonathan
>