From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8BCAC433DF for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667E9223C6 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2393421AbgJTLBA (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:01:00 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:8501 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2393282AbgJTLBA (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:01:00 -0400 IronPort-SDR: 84VCDKbpDYG/i9V1pTguMnW6a4g4jUEWqpgTmtVT10nTGlJehv+pI29V9C/rnwt3Pkn3eQc3nU 6YBhh/wL1J3A== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9779"; a="167308376" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,396,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="167308376" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Oct 2020 04:00:59 -0700 IronPort-SDR: xZ3WQGariDJAfyFaVkQfbdontik2fnd+MYGAE+fFZ/it3Y1YpXUp5sVpRWcCtggifCu/18WFpb KI5Lr5oaQriA== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,396,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="353293975" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com (HELO smile) ([10.237.68.40]) by fmsmga002-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Oct 2020 04:00:53 -0700 Received: from andy by smile with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1kUpOt-00BNIY-Ff; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 14:01:55 +0300 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 14:01:55 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Sakari Ailus Cc: Daniel Scally , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux.walleij@linaro.org, prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com, kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org, robh@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, pmladek@suse.com, mchehab@kernel.org, tian.shu.qiu@intel.com, bingbu.cao@intel.com, yong.zhi@intel.com, rafael@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kitakar@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] software_node: Add helper function to unregister arrays of software_nodes ordered parent to child Message-ID: <20201020110155.GH4077@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20201019225903.14276-1-djrscally@gmail.com> <20201019225903.14276-2-djrscally@gmail.com> <20201020100510.GS13341@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201020100510.GS13341@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:05:10PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:58:55PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > > Software nodes that are children of another software node should be > > unregistered before their parent. To allow easy unregistering of an array > > of software_nodes ordered parent to child, add a helper function to loop > > over and unregister nodes in such an array in reverse order. ... > > + * software_node_unregister_nodes_reverse - Unregister an array of software > > + * nodes in reverse order. > > + * @nodes: Array of software nodes to be unregistered. > > + * > > + * NOTE: The same warning applies as with software_node_unregister_nodes. > > + * Unless you are _sure_ that the array of nodes is ordered parent to child > > + * it is wiser to remove them individually in the correct order. > > Could the default order in software_node_unregister_nodes() be reversed > instead? There are no users so this should be easy to change. > > Doing this only one way may require enforcing the registration order in > software_node_register_nodes(), but the end result would be safer. > > What do you think? Will work for me (I would also hear Heikki). But in such case let's change the order of software_node_unregister_node_group() for the sake of consistency. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko