| Message ID | 20240807074655.52157-1-zhangzekun11@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Using for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() | expand |
On 07/08/2024 09:46, Zhang Zekun wrote: > for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node > automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and > remove the device_node clean up code. > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com> > --- This patch LGTM. Mar[ck] are you fine with it ?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:27:16AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 07/08/2024 09:46, Zhang Zekun wrote: > > for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node > > automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and > > remove the device_node clean up code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com> > > --- > > This patch LGTM. > > Mar[ck] are you fine with it ? Looks sound to me: Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Mark. > > > -- > <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs > > Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | > <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | > <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 09:27:16 +0100, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 07/08/2024 09:46, Zhang Zekun wrote: > > for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node > > automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and > > remove the device_node clean up code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com> > > --- > > This patch LGTM. > > Mar[ck] are you fine with it ? Yes, this looks OK to me. Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> M.
On 07/08/2024 09:46, Zhang Zekun wrote: > for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node > automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and > remove the device_node clean up code. > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com> > --- Applied, thanks
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c index aeafc74181f0..03733101e231 100644 --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c @@ -1594,7 +1594,6 @@ static int __init arch_timer_mem_of_init(struct device_node *np) { struct arch_timer_mem *timer_mem; struct arch_timer_mem_frame *frame; - struct device_node *frame_node; struct resource res; int ret = -EINVAL; u32 rate; @@ -1608,33 +1607,29 @@ static int __init arch_timer_mem_of_init(struct device_node *np) timer_mem->cntctlbase = res.start; timer_mem->size = resource_size(&res); - for_each_available_child_of_node(np, frame_node) { + for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped(np, frame_node) { u32 n; struct arch_timer_mem_frame *frame; if (of_property_read_u32(frame_node, "frame-number", &n)) { pr_err(FW_BUG "Missing frame-number.\n"); - of_node_put(frame_node); goto out; } if (n >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES) { pr_err(FW_BUG "Wrong frame-number, only 0-%u are permitted.\n", ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES - 1); - of_node_put(frame_node); goto out; } frame = &timer_mem->frame[n]; if (frame->valid) { pr_err(FW_BUG "Duplicated frame-number.\n"); - of_node_put(frame_node); goto out; } - if (of_address_to_resource(frame_node, 0, &res)) { - of_node_put(frame_node); + if (of_address_to_resource(frame_node, 0, &res)) goto out; - } + frame->cntbase = res.start; frame->size = resource_size(&res);
for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() can put the device_node automatically. So, using it to make the code logic more simple and remove the device_node clean up code. Signed-off-by: Zhang Zekun <zhangzekun11@huawei.com> --- drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 11 +++-------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)