Re: [PATCH 01/10] soc: qcom: aoss: Use __cleanup() for device_node pointers

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 11/18/25 1:52 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 01:32:51PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/11/2025 13:25, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 12:39:51PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 17/11/2025 12:35, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/25 5:51 AM, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
>>>>>> Make use of the __cleanup() attribute for device_node pointers to simplify
>>>>>> resource management and remove explicit of_node_put() calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>
>>>> This is obviously wrong and not helpful patch.
>>>
>>> Describing why it is wrong would be helpful (or having a pointer to an
>>> explanation). Bear in mind people who read email archives and find this
>>> very brief note.
>>
>> I gave some rationale in other patches, but summarizing:
>> 1. It is against cleanup.h - author did not bother to read it - which
>> clearly asks for constructor with declaration. This was discussed many
>> times in the list, including many bugs and explicit checkpatch warning
>> (on LKML) because people don't bother to read cleanup.h.

Looks like I didn't read it either.. now that I did, I see that
_free(x) = NULL is somewhat of an anti-pattern, but none of these
patches seem to introduce any bugs related to it

>> 2. It makes simple get+put code complicated, not simpler.

Here I tend to disagree.. 

>> 3. It grows the scope of OF reference without benefits.

This makes sense

Ultimately as you've noticed, this is mostly a cosmetic change and
I don't mind it going either way

Konrad

>> 4. This driver was already reviewed and simplified so author should go
>> back and think why this was left alone (would save a lot of trouble).
> 
> Thanks!
>