Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] hwmon: (ltc2992) Use fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped()

Jonathan Cameron
2024-05-27T14:57:30Z

On Mon, 27 May 2024 17:30:10 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sun, May 26, 2024 at 02:48:51PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron kirjoitti:
> > On Thu, 23 May 2024 17:47:16 +0200
> > Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The scoped version of the fwnode_for_each_available_child_node() macro
> > > automates object recfount decrement, avoiding possible memory leaks
> > > in new error paths inside the loop like it happened when
> > > commit '10b029020487 ("hwmon: (ltc2992) Avoid division by zero")'
> > > was added.
> > >
> > > The new macro removes the need to manually call fwnode_handle_put() in
> > > the existing error paths and in any future addition. It also removes the
> > > need for the current child node declaration as well, as it is internally
> > > declared.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com>
> >
> > This looks like another instances of the lack of clarify about
> > what device_for_each_child_node[_scoped]() guarantees about node availability.
> > On DT it guarantees the node is available as ultimately calls
> > of_get_next_available_child()
> >
> > On ACPI it doesn't (I think).
> > For swnode, there isn't an obvious concept of available.
> >
> > It would be much better if we reached some agreement on this and
> > hence could avoid using the fwnode variants just to get the _available_ form
> > as done here.
>
> > Or just add the device_for_each_available_child_node[_scoped]()
> > and call that in almost all cases.
>
> device_for_each*() _implies_ availability. You need to talk to Rob about all
> this. The design of the device_for_each*() was exactly done in accordance with
> his suggestions...
>

Does it imply that for ACPI? I can't find a query of _STA in the callbacks
(which is there for the for fwnode_*available calls.
Mind you it wouldn't be the first time I've missed something in the ACPI parsing
code, so maybe it is there indirectly.

I know from previous discussions that the DT version was intentional, but
I'm nervous that the same assumptions don't apply to ACPI.

> > In generic code, do we ever want to walk unavailable child nodes?
>
> ...which are most likely like your question here, i.e. why we ever need to
> traverse over unavailable nodes.
>

Jonathan