From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.8]) (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 A58641553BB; Thu, 2 May 2024 18:03:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714673008; cv=none; b=ubR9iZ35JWAONXngttL3s1B2DUpwLIk8/j7drIX+B1hlejCc2frkrcBXvxlLPOwLzh0H3QkA+SYQsmQhVKe8+DIjLWSje5XobW+5j5otNjcLxatN3NpdAJ/mnX/cmU77OjehpCSqoLcArALOHsaw1ilCKFyl942C41cYONAmnrk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714673008; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rwPBD7zU8deuKFTYLY8oJFYpCoQjHFdZlDqUf8AaoQo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mW8yjCyerwesb+d/tBW+579l5O1tmpQHD31deQGrehhsxIiLkujLo0x0rzMOpb4cysNeMVlbiGRAiR344tp8FdFLcO4PVViRmnprhU6SRTuXiUUtczq9E0UzVrPvdAZ55dI4v5pgfDZuYfBhJ5ebJFc16Sem7rsSnE0a7qDIuQY= 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=KlslehFS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 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="KlslehFS" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1714673007; x=1746209007; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=rwPBD7zU8deuKFTYLY8oJFYpCoQjHFdZlDqUf8AaoQo=; b=KlslehFSCTz/4EtW9P4+QazvDlhkDUisBwyTzdu/WbJOWuKNrgV6L7g1 yo0tth61/DAJOCgMWq80ErYsfWM4Q7xnkXj08zsAX71FtkHbZmtqKRvJe t7z6406Wzuvh+7nb5INWKY4ziMjfT6y+cgqSSuVdyWuk7B4fWzntnRZZH b/GKNwp8ZWD3k+e5IsqsbWxK2KxKEmow7JOoeDYCrKj+cIE+gLp286Kuq /5kODGpIf+Bn/9GvR9jldIfYco+cp9OiXICRxpT7xwmctweWFmMzuiQ4c JekBI/tDR32xU3SeDpsRpFoj6kC0qf07wlX7wqeKFW4Fl5lYiPD5fUcOP g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: IXoX1pU9RWaTsc/zgJpQZw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: +dUIydDCTamjFrMskg5hpg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11062"; a="27989864" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,247,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="27989864" Received: from fmviesa003.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.143]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 May 2024 11:03:14 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 2JLC8rOgQvOT5wDViZBkEA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: qD13URDuQHuDe0bO5++Cdw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,247,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="31689668" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmviesa003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 May 2024 11:03:12 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1s2alx-00000003PPW-2VPI; Thu, 02 May 2024 21:03:09 +0300 Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 21:03:09 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Javier Carrasco Cc: Daniel Scally , Heikki Krogerus , Sakari Ailus , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] device property: introduce fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped() Message-ID: References: <20240502-fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped-v1-1-868a2b168fa8@wolfvision.net> <6b5571e0-1463-4dd9-9bd8-459d456a6932@wolfvision.net> 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: <6b5571e0-1463-4dd9-9bd8-459d456a6932@wolfvision.net> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 07:58:26PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: > On 5/2/24 17:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:55:40PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: ... > >> This macro has been tested with a patch series that has not been > >> applied yet and is under discussion in input [1], which makes use of the > >> non-scoped version of the loop. > > > > So, why should we apply a dead code? > > I will add this patch to the series I mentioned, so there is a first use > case. Sounds like a good plan. > Even if the _available variant is preferred, the other one is more > widely used, and having a scoped version will allow for safer code. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko