Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f347:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp3767052pxu; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 09:49:32 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyjhcTUbg+xKaX8WRjEZcjbn81Fjp6kGzFvdJsq80ljvzNE37thYiVKWCXqMIkrTe2mQBQE X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4d8d:: with SMTP id s13mr14470019eju.305.1606758571887; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 09:49:31 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1606758571; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Vi1KjhdE28s2iIUuSSto3n3MC2vnavopMbj8hKJYiqzEJxFcvr37dWWfNKuhFTWxa1 IOjebd3DBlVoR2JSQY5xVYR39tLeMHpeSRY52KzYCwx2xJQFcQ6VoYYyPKmuPoRfQIKg 18lEfVVSVWNNImUV4BKYMsVK9iMtYrA9kK9FadmV8WU0lhHazXaq5gBGRhi17qIqnrPL iZJwjAlmVyI9coMpW5IF0faq0xSxhJBRYeSvn31PqdfVvZBoEKIGQp2y7zRTNBRrygoD tFgg5J4D110u8qRZbV8bE6YU0COYO/SVSdXA1cku5Q/J4cuuN8H3pZ7ynCBHagjw+Bsx uoAg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:organization:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :ironport-sdr:ironport-sdr; bh=KwIo6+jFKY6qGFoZdZT1I9xz2UfIbq8IAk04T0EbH/I=; b=wiHDyyY2geL1Fk+W7nH3h97SbQtlfPXmffUm5PQ6JpjyojnIrIFVcfw/urQpzjD7cd VWFGh/BaQY+AadmepDfB+g5m74MjjKLLPQJzM79l9sL+GYI538Xkzhd2lzn3zpS1lqzK 3yMVW9EzGhbzksMraaMJOmasbFZE06hqEc0VqXPGP+bqGPUSlqsC2fKIlLG2Tg+NyVtT y/eIzoGQIg3p36CbZvZjUljPA5Kpu4RbYdDVJai2qYsx5gPZ7tUXfovXPTAiphpzBjz3 DhAAcrF4UenFMo2vQ3w6dI3sByHNI2Oty+sKI577CiyVg36x1SEI6VtMBRk3bcCQBVwh aTAg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a21si11196780ejd.281.2020.11.30.09.49.09; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 09:49:31 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387518AbgK3Rqj (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:46:39 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:28016 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728531AbgK3Rqi (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:46:38 -0500 IronPort-SDR: SvOJASuBD6pJ+/ZVnpb8mefeHSAfc3nmKINsNMdzASxcLzs/v/7fqlue9TQCNTEUlE8w4v6ns2 kBPSNYb7ZNbw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9821"; a="171893094" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,382,1599548400"; d="scan'208";a="171893094" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Nov 2020 09:44:47 -0800 IronPort-SDR: K4Lv8VYpHyuLxAvAG2Xpm2yVewTVRu28dNF0l6nBMlELHaKVXu14CV1XJ8Gqp3iWWE7ypM9g8H vTP4T4Saasgw== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,382,1599548400"; d="scan'208";a="372578999" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com (HELO smile) ([10.237.68.40]) by fmsmga003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Nov 2020 09:44:41 -0800 Received: from andy by smile with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1kjnF8-00B69B-48; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:45:42 +0200 Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:45:42 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Daniel Scally Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org, bgolaszewski@baylibre.com, wsa@kernel.org, yong.zhi@intel.com, sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com, bingbu.cao@intel.com, tian.shu.qiu@intel.com, mchehab@kernel.org, robert.moore@intel.com, erik.kaneda@intel.com, pmladek@suse.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org, laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com, jorhand@linux.microsoft.com, kitakar@gmail.com, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] software_node: Alter software_node_unregister_nodes() to unregister the array in reverse order Message-ID: <20201130174542.GQ4077@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20201130133129.1024662-1-djrscally@gmail.com> <20201130133129.1024662-6-djrscally@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201130133129.1024662-6-djrscally@gmail.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:16PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote: > Software nodes that are children of another software node should be > unregistered before their parent. To allow easy unregistering of an array > of software_nodes ordered parent to child, reverse the order in which > this function unregisters software_nodes. Should be folded in the previous patch. Otherwise we will have a history point where register() behaves differently to unregister(). ... > + * @nodes: Zero terminated array of software nodes to be unregistered. If > + * parent pointers are set up in any of the software nodes then the array > + * MUST be ordered such that parents come before their children. Please, leave field description short. Rather add another note to the Description below. > * > * Unregister multiple software nodes at once. > * > - * NOTE: Be careful using this call if the nodes had parent pointers set up in > - * them before registering. If so, it is wiser to remove the nodes > - * individually, in the correct order (child before parent) instead of relying > - * on the sequential order of the list of nodes in the array. > + * NOTE: If you are uncertain whether the array is ordered such that > + * parents will be unregistered before their children, it is wiser to > + * remove the nodes individually, in the correct order (child before > + * parent). > */ -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko