Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] property: Add device_get_child_node_count_named()

Andy Shevchenko
2025-02-25T10:21:40Z

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * device_get_child_node_count_named - number of child nodes with given name
> > + *
> > + * Scan device's child nodes and find all the nodes with a specific name and
> > + * return the number of found nodes. Potential '@number' -ending for scanned
> > + * names is ignored. Eg,
> > + * device_get_child_node_count(dev, "channel");
> > + * would match all the nodes:
> > + * channel { }, channel@0 {}, channel@0xabba {}...
> > + *
> > + * @dev: Device to count the child nodes for

This has an inconsistent kernel doc structure in comparison to the rest in this
file.

> > + * Return: the number of child nodes with a matching name for a given device.
> > + */
> > +unsigned int device_get_child_node_count_named(const struct device *dev,
> > + const char *name)
> > +{
> > + struct fwnode_handle *child;
> > + unsigned int count = 0;
> > +
> > + device_for_each_child_node(dev, child)
> > + if (fwnode_name_eq(child, "channel"))
>
> s/"channel"/name/ ?
>
> > + count++;
> > +
> > + return count;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_get_child_node_count_named);
>
> I did not check how many users are you proposing for this, but if
> there's only one, then IMO this should not be a global function yet.
> It just feels to special case to me. But let's see what the others
> think.

The problem is that if somebody hides it, we might potentially see
a duplication in the future. So I _slightly_ prefer to publish and
then drop that after a few cycles if no users appear.

Also this misses the test cases.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko