[PATCH v3 4/9] media: platform: microchip: use for_each_endpoint_of_node()

[Kuninori Morimoto]

Hi Dan, Rob, Helge

> > -	while (1) {
> > +	for_each_endpoint_of_node(np, epn) {
> >  		struct v4l2_fwnode_endpoint v4l2_epn = { .bus_type = 0 };
> > -
> > -		epn = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(np, epn);
> > -		if (!epn)
> > -			return 0;
> > +		int ret;
> >  
> >  		ret = v4l2_fwnode_endpoint_parse(of_fwnode_handle(epn),
> >  						 &v4l2_epn);
> >  		if (ret) {
> > -			ret = -EINVAL;
> > +			of_node_put(epn);
> >  			dev_err(dev, "Could not parse the endpoint\n");
> > -			break;
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> >  		}
> >  
> >  		subdev_entity = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*subdev_entity),
> >  					     GFP_KERNEL);
> >  		if (!subdev_entity) {
> > -			ret = -ENOMEM;
> > -			break;
> > +			of_node_put(epn);
> > +			return -ENOMEM;
> >  		}
> >  		subdev_entity->epn = epn;
> 
> This code is an example of what Laurent was talking about.  We're taking
> storing "subdev_entity->epn = epn" but then not incrementing the
> refcount.  Perhaps it's not necessary?
> 
> The difference between this and _scoped() would be if we stored epn and
> then returned.  I feel like that's less common.  We could detect that
> sort of thing using static analysis if it turned out to be an issue.

Thank you for pointing good sample, Dan.

But I wonder should this patch-set include and use _scoped() macro ?
If above is just a comment, _scoped() macro will be separate patch-set.
If above is pointing the issue, v4 need to have _scoped() macro.

Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto