On 01/04/2021 at 16:42, Claudiu Beznea - M18063 wrote:
+unmap:
+ iounmap(reset->rstc_base);
+ for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(reset->ramc_base); idx++)
+ iounmap(reset->ramc_base[idx]);
But if we keep this loop, I have the feeling that some kind of
"of_node_put()" is needed as well.
No! In the loop:
for_each_matching_node_and_match(np, at91_ramc_of_match, &match) {
reset->ramc_lpr = (u32)match->data;
reset->ramc_base[idx] = of_iomap(np, 0);
if (!reset->ramc_base[idx]) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Could not map ram controller address\n");
of_node_put(np);
ret = -ENODEV;
goto unmap;
}
idx++;
}
the of_node_put() is needed only if the loop is interrupted as the macro:
for_each_matching_node_and_match() is defined as follows:
#define for_each_matching_node_and_match(dn, matches, match) \
for (dn = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, matches, match); \
dn; dn = of_find_matching_node_and_match(dn, matches, match))
and of_find_matching_node_and_match() will return a np with refcount
incremented but at the next loop step the of_find_matching_node_and_match()
will be called with the same np pointer and the np refcount will be
decremented.
struct device_node *of_find_matching_node_and_match(
struct device_node *from,
const struct of_device_id *matches,
const struct of_device_id **match)
{
// ...
of_node_put(from);
// ...
}
Oh yes you're right Claudiu, I overlooked this one. Thanks for the
in-depth explanation.
Best regards,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas Ferre
