From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D79839FDD; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:03:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707739419; cv=none; b=TiFFd6msVUdiju9V6bvdA580wsY2o4YHDdWP9ai3ZspW4UDcjjKgw+dNOnO7mpRTQ1N+B0b3pWTjMyS6K7HShtt2IEAwwlr39dkd+M4T+p+EznfGkLjAYDZ9Kr+qbd2PXxAUffDjCeKDNPRlvS9AWzEmYPaSPyKEkRPrwQ4qwT8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707739419; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/ArukyQ43nbAu5tdlP70gnYEQF8hurIKFzga3ib3UqQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=UNkg/aHTRvAUJ1aJoqRzvZb8olKCA026ouUcNq9AgEK22exbokTOMl0mGN/OPxQVQ/evZf//S3N7Fif8p6GehYaADyyl4oPSKehV9/OP87FmY7GjSSWqym86fwa+m87igAaeDbkmrGipj/GiNELvkYchm9aU5iOuWBCXolPQSUo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=aPQv5pn2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="aPQv5pn2" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1707739417; x=1739275417; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=/ArukyQ43nbAu5tdlP70gnYEQF8hurIKFzga3ib3UqQ=; b=aPQv5pn2u8HLUD0iKexhf2GWPbWo0a2xOtaqSK3oWQ3iMzNqahCJJgzM TRDim3oCa5X7+eMNy/qmn16UfmjFyyYEFnLenD5spppU3wYH2GxWZrWIR ryjiO0oaThurPeTAYs6kUEJSZ8JqLpam6bWcnAoRr7zMCHWRR0KvMboUw fJpwuPUXID4605yyz31YxUzxb2Hn9WkoJYUMrF+pZSTrhH38mz83cfLSF wxdizPDmzDWZd4Uw0GH8XeTGbHEohCG0NZAwUUd494SNv61h2WMvjXpwM n8O3t5hv2Khl3e7BLIUiqTOko+bK+8dmH4O5gIBA/dzAee8dNzx9UeIyZ w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10981"; a="2056423" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,263,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="2056423" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmvoesa110.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2024 04:03:36 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10981"; a="911463159" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,263,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="911463159" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2024 04:03:32 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rZV21-00000003t3w-3FM1; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:03:29 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:03:29 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall , Peter Zijlstra , Nicolas Palix , Sumera Priyadarsini , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , Jonathan Cameron Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] of: automate of_node_put() - new approach to loops. Message-ID: References: <20240211174237.182947-1-jic23@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240211174237.182947-1-jic23@kernel.org> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 05:42:28PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > From: Jonathan Cameron > > Since RFC: > - Provide a for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() variant and > use that whenever we aren't specifically trying to include disabled > nodes. > - Fix the for_each_child_of_node_scoped() to not use a mix of > _available_ and other calls. > - Include a few more examples. The last one is there to show that > not all uses of the __free(device_node) call are due to the loops. I'm a bit skeptical about need of this work. What I would prefer to see is getting rid of OF-centric drivers in IIO. With that, we would need only fwnode part to be properly implemented. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko