| Message ID | 20240805-device_for_each_child_node-available-v3-2-48243a4aa5c0@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes | expand |
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 16:49:45 +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: > > The iterated nodes are direct children of the device node, and the > > `device_for_each_child_node()` macro accounts for child node > > availability. > > > > `fwnode_for_each_available_child_node()` is meant to access the child > > nodes of an fwnode, and therefore not direct child nodes of the device > > node. > > > > [...] > > Applied, thanks! > > [2/4] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes > commit: 6eefd65ba6ae29ab801f6461e59c10f93dd496f8 I'm not sure what you rebased onto, but it wasn't LEDs or -next. Anyway, I fixed-up the conflicts and pushed. The patch should be in -next by tomorrow. Please check it to ensure I didn't make any mistakes.
On 05/08/2024 18:01, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 05 Aug 2024, Lee Jones wrote: > >> On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 16:49:45 +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>> The iterated nodes are direct children of the device node, and the >>> `device_for_each_child_node()` macro accounts for child node >>> availability. >>> >>> `fwnode_for_each_available_child_node()` is meant to access the child >>> nodes of an fwnode, and therefore not direct child nodes of the device >>> node. >>> >>> [...] >> >> Applied, thanks! >> >> [2/4] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes >> commit: 6eefd65ba6ae29ab801f6461e59c10f93dd496f8 > > I'm not sure what you rebased onto, but it wasn't LEDs or -next. > > Anyway, I fixed-up the conflicts and pushed. > > The patch should be in -next by tomorrow. > > Please check it to ensure I didn't make any mistakes. > Hi, I rebased onto next-20240805, and its commit ID matches the base-commit provided in the cover letter (generated by b4). I wonder why it did not work on your side, but thanks for fixing the conflicts and applying (I checked it and it looks fine). Best regards, Javier Carrasco
diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-pca995x.c b/drivers/leds/leds-pca995x.c index 686b77772cce..83bc9669544c 100644 --- a/drivers/leds/leds-pca995x.c +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-pca995x.c @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static const struct regmap_config pca995x_regmap = { static int pca995x_probe(struct i2c_client *client) { struct fwnode_handle *led_fwnodes[PCA995X_MAX_OUTPUTS] = { 0 }; - struct fwnode_handle *np, *child; + struct fwnode_handle *child; struct device *dev = &client->dev; const struct pca995x_chipdef *chipdef; struct pca995x_chip *chip; @@ -129,8 +129,7 @@ static int pca995x_probe(struct i2c_client *client) chipdef = device_get_match_data(&client->dev); - np = dev_fwnode(dev); - if (!np) + if (!dev_fwnode(dev)) return -ENODEV; chip = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL); @@ -144,17 +143,13 @@ static int pca995x_probe(struct i2c_client *client) i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip); - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(np, child) { + device_for_each_child_node(dev, child) { ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", ®); - if (ret) { - fwnode_handle_put(child); + if (ret) return ret; - } - if (reg < 0 || reg >= PCA995X_MAX_OUTPUTS || led_fwnodes[reg]) { - fwnode_handle_put(child); + if (reg < 0 || reg >= PCA995X_MAX_OUTPUTS || led_fwnodes[reg]) return -EINVAL; - } led = &chip->leds[reg]; led_fwnodes[reg] = child;