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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210510095045.3299382-1-andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
 <20210510095045.3299382-29-andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> <20210528101454.GJ2209@amd>
 <YLDNKekDfNQPorRG@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <YLDNKekDfNQPorRG@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 29 May 2021 12:58:04 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VemPYaGY_icsuCa4AKi1tucpEuKFKhDPo4cS_a0cLDa2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 28/28] leds: sgm3140: Put fwnode in any case during ->probe()
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc:     Amireddy Mallikarjuna reddy <mallikarjunax.reddy@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?TWFyZWsgQmVow7pu?= <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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:01 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

I found the above is good justification, so I leave those patches
unchanged in v2.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko