On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 01:16:30PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 1:10 PM Andy Shevchenko > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 11:20:26AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
... > > > + device_remove_software_node(dev); > > > of_node_put(pa->pdev.dev.of_node); > > > > So, why do we decide not to convert this to fwnode_handle_put() (and > > respective > > _get() elsewhere)? > > Yes, I'll do it separately, I don't want to shove too much stuff into > this bugfix. Ah, good! ... > > > + /* > > > + * If the primary firmware node is a software node and there's no > > > + * secondary firmware node, the primary will be affected by the call > > > + * to device_remove_software_node() in platform_device_release() and > > > + * its reference count will be dropped by one. Take another > > > reference > > > + * here to make it have no effect. > > > + */ > > > + if (is_software_node(pdevinfo->fwnode) && !pdevinfo->swnode) > > > + fwnode_handle_get(pdevinfo->fwnode); > > > > IIUC the `is_software_node(pdevinfo->fwnode) && pdevinfo->swnode` may not > > happen here due to the above check. If I haven't missed anything, this check > > is simply > > Right, it can be a simple is_software_node(pdevinfo->fwnode). With that being addressed, the rest LGTM, Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> (also assuming we will have at some point the above mentioned amendment). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
