Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/7] media: hantro: add support for reset lines | From | Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <> | Date | Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:36:57 +0100 |
| |
Hi Dan, hi Jernej,
W dniu 23.11.2021 o 15:59, Dan Carpenter pisze: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:09:03PM +0100, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c b/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c >>> index ab2467998d29..8c3de31f51b3 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c >>> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c >>> @@ -905,6 +905,10 @@ static int hantro_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> return PTR_ERR(vpu->clocks[0].clk); >>> } >>> + vpu->resets = devm_reset_control_array_get(&pdev->dev, false, true); >>> + if (IS_ERR(vpu->resets)) >>> + return PTR_ERR(vpu->resets); >>> + >>> num_bases = vpu->variant->num_regs ?: 1; >>> vpu->reg_bases = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, num_bases, >>> sizeof(*vpu->reg_bases), GFP_KERNEL); >>> @@ -978,10 +982,16 @@ static int hantro_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(vpu->dev); >>> pm_runtime_enable(vpu->dev); > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > It looks like this is the pm stuff that we have to unwind on error > >>> + ret = reset_control_deassert(vpu->resets); >>> + if (ret) { >>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to deassert resets\n"); >>> + return ret; > ^^^^^^^^^^ > So this return should be a goto undo_pm_stuff > > >>> + } >>> + >>> ret = clk_bulk_prepare(vpu->variant->num_clocks, vpu->clocks); >>> if (ret) { >>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to prepare clocks\n"); >>> - return ret; > > And this return should also have been a goto so it's a bug in the > original code.
So we probably want a separate patch addressing that first, and then the series proper on top of that.
Regards,
Andrzej
> >>> + goto err_rst_assert; >> >> Before your patch is applied if clk_bulk_prepare() fails, we >> simply return on the spot. After the patch is applied not only >> do you... >> >>> } >>> ret = v4l2_device_register(&pdev->dev, &vpu->v4l2_dev); >>> @@ -1037,6 +1047,8 @@ static int hantro_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> v4l2_device_unregister(&vpu->v4l2_dev); >>> err_clk_unprepare: >>> clk_bulk_unprepare(vpu->variant->num_clocks, vpu->clocks); >>> +err_rst_assert: >>> + reset_control_assert(vpu->resets); >> >> ...revert the effect of reset_control_deassert(), you also... >> >>> pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(vpu->dev); >>> pm_runtime_disable(vpu->dev); >> >> ... do pm_*() stuff. Is there any reason why this is needed? > > So, yes, it's needed, but you're correct to spot that it's not > consistent. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
| |