Re: [PATCH 0/2] hwmon: use device_for_each_child_node_scoped()

[Guenter Roeck]

On 6/7/24 14:00, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> On 04/04/2024 13:13, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> > Switch to the _scoped() version introduced in commit 365130fd47af
> > ("device property: Introduce device_for_each_child_node_scoped()")
> > to remove the need for manual calling of fwnode_handle_put() in the
> > paths where the code exits the loop early.
> >
> > There are only two users of the non scoped version in the hwmon
> > subsystem:
> >
> > - ltc2991
> > - gsc-hwmon
> >
> > All calls of fwnode_handle_put() were in error paths.
> >
> > This series is based on the master branch of linux-next (next-20240404)
> > to profif from the scoped version of device_for_each_child_node().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Javier Carrasco (2):
> >        hwmon: (ltc2991) use device_for_each_child_node_scoped()
> >        hwmon: (gsc-hwmon) use device_for_each_child_node_scoped()
> >
> >   drivers/hwmon/gsc-hwmon.c |  7 +------
> >   drivers/hwmon/ltc2991.c   | 11 +++--------
> >   2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > ---
> > base-commit: 2b3d5988ae2cb5cd945ddbc653f0a71706231fdd
> > change-id: 20240404-hwmon_device_for_each_child_node_scoped-6e581c1d8a31
> >
> > Best regards,
>
>
> Hi, this patch appears as "superseded" in the patchwork, but I could not
> find what series actually superseded it.
>
> I just noticed that the cleanup in ltc2991.c turns out to be a bug fix
> as well because there is an error path if "shunt-resistor-micro-ohms" is
> zero that misses the required fwnode_handle_put().
>
> This is something similar like the recently applied fix for the ltc2992
> [1], but in this case the _scoped() macro already exists and is in use
> in the mainline kernel, and no explicit call to fwnode_handle_put() is
> required unless the fix is to be ported to old kernels that don't have
> the device_for_each_child_node_scoped() macro.
>
> Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hwmon/20240523-fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped-v2-0-701f3a03f2fb@xxxxxxxxx/
> [1]

I strongly suspect I confused it with the other series introducing
fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped(). Sorry for the confusion.

Guenter