On 09/10/2014 12:23 PM, Axel Lin wrote:
> 2014-09-10 12:20 GMT+08:00 Axel Lin <axel....@ingics.com>:
>> 2014-09-10 11:50 GMT+08:00 Guodong Xu <guodong...@linaro.org>:
>>> These of_node_get() were added to balance refcount decrements inside of
>>> of_find_node_by_name().
>>> See: commit c92f5dd2c42f ("regulator: Add missing of_node_put()")
>>>
>>> However of_find_node_by_name() was then replaced by of_get_child_by_name(),
>>> which doesn't call of_node_put() against its input parameter.
>>>
>>> So, need to remove these unnecessary of_node_get() calls.
>>
>> The of_node_get() and of_node_put() is a pair.
>> You need to either keep both or remove both.
>>
>>
>> BTW,
>> I think either the comment of of_get_child_by_name() needs fix or the
>> implementation
>> needs fix. The implementation does not increment refcount.
>
> Ah, I see the of_node_get() and of_node_put() in __of_get_next_child.
> So of_get_child_by_name() is correct.(both comment and implementation)
>
That's right. You only need to call of_node_put() once on the node
of_get_child_by_name() returns. That's why I submit this patch to remove
of_node_get() _before_ calling to of_get_child_by_name().
-Guodong
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
