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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] software_node: Add support for fwnode_graph*()
 family of functions
From:   Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        lenb@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.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, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
        linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com,
        jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org, kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com,
        kitakar@gmail.com, jorhand@linux.microsoft.com
References: <20201217234337.1983732-1-djrscally@gmail.com>
 <20201217234337.1983732-7-djrscally@gmail.com>
 <X9zXPpirfS2mCFk0@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <8d448981-ddd5-9e2e-03bc-0a67b318d379@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ea73b9ca-d0c0-060d-5af6-f7a82f36b136@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 23:46:34 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8d448981-ddd5-9e2e-03bc-0a67b318d379@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 18/12/2020 22:13, Daniel Scally wrote:

>>> +			break;
>>> +		}
>>> +
>>> +		/* No more endpoints for that port, so stop passing old */
>>> +		old = NULL;
>>
>> I wonder if you could drop the 'old' variable and use 'enpoint' in the
>> call to software_node_get_next_child(). You could then drop these two
>> lines.
> 
> That won't work, because endpoint would at that point not be a child of
> the port we're passing, and the function relies on it being one:
> 
> 	if (!p || list_empty(&p->children) ||
> 	    (c && list_is_last(&c->entry, &p->children))) {
> 		fwnode_handle_put(child);
> 		return NULL;
> 	}
> 

Wait, that's nonsense of course, because endpoint gets set to NULL when
software_node_get_next_child() finds nothing - I'll double check but
pretty sure you're right.