Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: E5yBYKFnh+0CFGgYF2lGnE4S1/HN8eu6K+2pFY1CBKV5pBJuD4Hg1TPej70v4uwzJ94DVDak8q
 83rvcYUKoWOg==
IronPort-SDR: uIsyGHh8GhoqAsZebAcX7woAL+Q19e76vrn2ZrsSz02YK9jPJ2m7H7ZrDe6SJIMKxMPitUddvG
 XKkBQ6rX+0PQ==
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:33:21 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Dan Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>
Cc:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux.walleij@linaro.org,
        prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com,
        heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com,
        kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org,
        robh@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk,
        sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        pmladek@suse.com, mchehab@kernel.org, tian.shu.qiu@intel.com,
        bingbu.cao@intel.com, sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com,
        yong.zhi@intel.com, rafael@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        kitakar@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/9] software_node: Fix failure to hold refcount
 in software_node_get_next_child
Message-ID: <20201021093321.GM4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20201019225903.14276-1-djrscally@gmail.com>
 <20201019225903.14276-4-djrscally@gmail.com>
 <20201020133148.GB843@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk>
 <c1a7beba-faff-e06d-1517-5b30d777b252@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c1a7beba-faff-e06d-1517-5b30d777b252@gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:25:28AM +0100, Dan Scally wrote:
> On 20/10/2020 14:31, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:58:57PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:

> >> +	return software_node_get(&c->fwnode);
> > I believe similarly, the function should drop the reference to the previous
> > node, and not expect the caller to do this. The OF equivalent does the
> > same.
> 
> I think I prefer it this way myself, since the alternative is having to
> explicitly call *_node_get() on a returned child if you want to keep it
> but also keep iterating. But I agree that it's important to take a
> consistent approach. I'll add that too; this will mean
> swnode_graph_find_next_port() and
> software_node_graph_get_next_endpoint() in patch 4 of this series will
> need changing slightly to square away their references.

What about ACPI case? Does it square?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko