Hi Philipp, On Friday 07 March 2014 18:40:54 Philipp Zabel wrote: > Am Freitag, den 07.03.2014, 01:12 +0100 schrieb Laurent Pinchart: > > Hi Philipp, > > > > Thank you for the patch. > > > > I've submitted a fix for the of_graph_get_next_endpoint() function, but it > > hasn't been applied yet due to the patch series that contained it needing > > more work. > > > > The patch is available at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/21946/. I > > can rebase it on top of this series, but I still wanted to let you know > > about it in case you would like to integrate it. > > Thank you for the pointer. A pity about the timing, this will mostly > revert my indentation patch. I'd be glad if you could rebase on top of > the merged series. > > While we look at of_graph_get_next_endpoint(), could you explain the > reason behind the extra reference count increase on the prev node: > > /* > * Avoid dropping prev node refcount to 0 when getting the next > * child below. > */ > of_node_get(prev); > > This unfortunately makes using the function in for_each style macros a > hassle. If that part wasn't there and all users that want to keep using > prev after the call were expected to increase refcount themselves, > we could have a > > #define of_graph_for_each_endpoint(parent, endpoint) \ > for (endpoint = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(parent, NULL); \ > endpoint != NULL; \ > endpoint = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(parent, endpoint))
I don't know what the exact design decision was (Sylwester might know), but I suspect it's mostly about historical reasons. I see no reason that would prevent modifying the current behaviour to make a for-each loop easier to implement. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
