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: mSYL3t3iCBuh5FFbDih6cwxrQbngPyabDxhvjewIVCFZBcW9iZT2M//xfMe9ACHb+mByc95wWz
 bWFOsZ9c/G+A==
IronPort-SDR: uy0r5inqD7b3ySekCdAI9Xs1TWDSN3JJKFkITW47mQ1iH7+JKYS/0+lvwDe4GIk4taAjr/EI7v
 VHVvCsQauAVw==
Date:   Fri, 28 May 2021 13:59:53 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc:     Amireddy Mallikarjuna reddy <mallikarjunax.reddy@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Marek =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beh=FAn?= <marek.behun@nic.cz>,
        Abanoub Sameh <abanoubsameh8@gmail.com>,
        Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 28/28] leds: sgm3140: Put fwnode in any case during
 ->probe()
Message-ID: <YLDNKekDfNQPorRG@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20210510095045.3299382-1-andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
 <20210510095045.3299382-29-andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
 <20210528101454.GJ2209@amd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210528101454.GJ2209@amd>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:14:54PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > fwnode_get_next_child_node() bumps a reference counting of a returned variable.
> > We have to balance it whenever we return to the caller.
> 
> This (and similar) -- in half of the drivers we hold the handle from
> successful probe. Is it a problem and why is it problem only for some
> drivers?

Hmm... I'm not sure I have understood the question correctly. Any examples of
the driver that you think needs some attention?

In general the idea is that these kind of for-loops or getting next fwnode
should be balanced.

In case of for-loops the error or any other breakage means that reference count
is bumped, for the get_next API it's always the case.

I have checked between drivers and only considered above cases. Wherever there
is a for-loop which isn't broken, we are fine. Wherever we have explicit
reference counter drop for get_next cases, we are fine. If (any) framework
requires the resource to be present that framework should bump and drop
reference count on the resource by itself (so I split LED framework out from
the consideration and consider that it does the right things)

> Thanks for series, btw, I pushed out current version of the tree.

Should I rebase the new version on something I can find in your Git tree?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko