Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:33:56 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] SPI: Add SPI driver for Sunplus SP7021 |
| |
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 9:49 AM Lh Kuo 郭力豪 <lh.Kuo@sunplus.com> wrote:
(Uncommented is okay)
...
> > > ret = devm_request_irq(dev, pspim->mas_irq, sp7021_spi_mas_irq > > > , IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, > > > pdev->name, pspim); > > > > Ugly indentation. > > > > Amended as follows, is it okay? > > ret = devm_request_irq(dev, pspim->mas_irq, sp7021_spi_mas_irq > , IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, pdev->name, pspim); > if (ret) > return ret;
Still not okay. Have you seen this style somewhere in the kernel? Hint: something is really wrong with comma's location.
...
> > > pm_runtime_enable(dev); > > > > > > ret = devm_spi_register_controller(dev, ctlr); > > > > You can't mix non-devm with devm APIs. Either all non-devm, or devm followed by non-devm.
> I don't understand so I need to change to spi_register_controller(ctlr)? why?
I haven't told you that. What I'm saying is this: 1) all calls are devm_*() - OK! 2) all calls are non-devm_*() OK! 3) devm_*() followed by non-devm_*() OK! 4) non-devm_*() call followed by devm_*() call NOT okay!
You need to fulfil your homework (see plenty of the examples in the Linux kernel source tree on how to proceed).
> I modified the remove-function as follows. I think devm_spi_register_controller(dev, ctlr); should be no problem in the probe funciton.
It has ordering issues. That's why 4) above is not okay.
> static int sp7021_spi_controller_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > struct spi_controller *ctlr = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev); > struct sp7021_spi_ctlr *pspim = spi_master_get_devdata(ctlr); > > pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); > pm_runtime_set_suspended(&pdev->dev); > reset_control_assert(pspim->rstc); > clk_disable_unprepare(pspim->spi_clk); > > return 0; > }
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |