Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 May 2022 19:09:12 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: rawnand: cafe: fix drivers probe/remove methods | From | Marion & Christophe JAILLET <> |
| |
Le 20/05/2022 à 18:53, Christophe JAILLET a écrit : > Le 20/05/2022 à 10:44, Peng Wu a écrit : >> Driver should call pci_disable_device() if it returns from >> cafe_nand_probe() with error. >> >> Meanwhile, the driver calls pci_enable_device() in >> cafe_nand_probe(), but never calls pci_disable_device() >> during removal. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peng Wu <wupeng58@huawei.com> >> --- >> v2: >> - fix the subject prefix with "mtd: ranwnand: cafe:" >> --- >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/cafe_nand.c | 9 +++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/cafe_nand.c >> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/cafe_nand.c >> index 9dbf031716a6..af119e376352 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/cafe_nand.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/cafe_nand.c >> @@ -679,8 +679,10 @@ static int cafe_nand_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, >> pci_set_master(pdev); >> cafe = kzalloc(sizeof(*cafe), GFP_KERNEL); >> - if (!cafe) >> - return -ENOMEM; >> + if (!cafe) { >> + err = -ENOMEM; >> + goto out_disable_device; >> + } >> mtd = nand_to_mtd(&cafe->nand); >> mtd->dev.parent = &pdev->dev; >> @@ -801,6 +803,8 @@ static int cafe_nand_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, >> pci_iounmap(pdev, cafe->mmio); >> out_free_mtd: >> kfree(cafe); >> + out_disable_device: >> + pci_disable_device(pdev); >> out: >> return err; >> } >> @@ -822,6 +826,7 @@ static void cafe_nand_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) >> pci_iounmap(pdev, cafe->mmio); >> dma_free_coherent(&cafe->pdev->dev, 2112, cafe->dmabuf, >> cafe->dmaaddr); > > Hi, > > Not related to this patch , but I wonder if this dma_free_coherent() is > needed. > It is already part of cafe_nand_detach_chip() which is a .detach_chip() > function. > > Is this .detach_chip() function already called (by nand_cleanup()) > somewhere in the removal process? >
In fact the "somewhere" is just 3 lines above the dma_free_coherent() call. So I definitively think that this line should be axed.
CJ
> CJ > > >> kfree(cafe); >> + pci_disable_device(pdev); >> } >> static const struct pci_device_id cafe_nand_tbl[] = { > >
| |