Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-166822-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 21:04:35 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco@wolfvision.net>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] device property: introduce
 fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped()
Message-ID: <ZjPVs5NJzlMzHYn0@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240502-fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped-v1-1-868a2b168fa8@wolfvision.net>
 <ZjOybob3wJjisuBL@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <6b5571e0-1463-4dd9-9bd8-459d456a6932@wolfvision.net>
 <ZjPVXW9tr0RLp7Jn@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZjPVXW9tr0RLp7Jn@smile.fi.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 09:03:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 07:58:26PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> > On 5/2/24 17:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:55:40PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:

..

> > >> This macro has been tested with a patch series that has not been
> > >> applied yet and is under discussion in input [1], which makes use of the
> > >> non-scoped version of the loop.
> > > 
> > > So, why should we apply a dead code?
> > 
> > I will add this patch to the series I mentioned, so there is a first use
> > case.
> 
> Sounds like a good plan.

Ah, note that IIO has already some patches against device property APIs. Maybe
it's already done by Jonathan.
Cc'ed to him.

> > Even if the _available variant is preferred, the other one is more
> > widely used, and having a scoped version will allow for safer code.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko