Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jun 2022 23:03:34 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] p54: Fix an error handling path in p54spi_probe() | From | Christian Lamparter <> |
| |
On 13/06/2022 22:57, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Le 13/06/2022 à 22:02, Christian Lamparter a écrit : >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 11:12 PM Christophe JAILLET >> <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >>> >>> If an error occurs after a successful call to p54spi_request_firmware(), it >>> must be undone by a corresponding release_firmware() as already done in >>> the error handling path of p54spi_request_firmware() and in the .remove() >>> function. >>> >>> Add the missing call in the error handling path and remove it from >>> p54spi_request_firmware() now that it is the responsibility of the caller >>> to release the firmawre >> >> that last word hast a typo: firmware. (maybe Kalle can fix this in post). > > More or less the same typo twice in a row... _Embarrassed_ > >> >>> Fixes: cd8d3d321285 ("p54spi: p54spi driver") >>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> >> Acked-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@gmail.com> >> (Though, v1 was fine too.) >>> --- >>> v2: reduce diffstat and take advantage on the fact that release_firmware() >>> checks for NULL >> >> Heh, ok ;) . Now that I see it, the "ret = p54_parse_firmware(...); ... " >> could have been replaced with "return p54_parse_firmware(dev, priv->firmware);" >> so the p54spi.c could shrink another 5-6 lines. >> >> I think leaving p54spi_request_firmware() callee to deal with >> releasing the firmware >> in the error case as well is nicer because it gets rid of a "but in >> this case" complexity. > > > Take the one you consider being the best one.
well said!
> > If it deserves a v3 to axe some lines of code, > I can do it but, as said previously, > v1 is for me the cleaner and more future proof.
Gee, that last sentence about "future proof" is daring. I don't know what's up on the horizon. For my part, I've been devresing parts of carl9170 and now thinking about it. Because the various request_firmware*() functions could be a target for devres too. A driver usually loads the firmware in .probe(). It stays around because of .suspend()+.resume() and gets freed by .release(). With devresing up request_firmware(), that release_firmware() would be rendered obsolete in all of p54* cases.
There must be something that I have missed? right?
It's because there's already an extensive list of managed interfaces: <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/driver-model/devres.html> But the firmware_class is not on it. Does somebody know the presumably "very good" reason why not? I can't believe that this hasn't been done yet.
Regards, Christian
| |