Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:37:12 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc:85xx: Add missing of_node_put() in sgy_cst1000 | From | Christophe JAILLET <> |
| |
Le 17/06/2022 à 07:22, Liang He a écrit : > In gpio_halt_probe(), of_find_matching_node() will return a node > pointer with refcount incremented. We should use of_node_put() in > fail path or when it is not used anymore. > > Signed-off-by: Liang He <windhl@126.com> > --- > arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/sgy_cts1000.c | 39 +++++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/sgy_cts1000.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/sgy_cts1000.c > index 98ae64075193..a8690fc552cf 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/sgy_cts1000.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/sgy_cts1000.c > @@ -71,33 +71,39 @@ static int gpio_halt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > enum of_gpio_flags flags; > struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node; > + struct device_node *child_node; > int gpio, err, irq; > int trigger; > + int ret; > > if (!node) > return -ENODEV; > > /* If there's no matching child, this isn't really an error */ > - halt_node = of_find_matching_node(node, child_match); > - if (!halt_node) > + child_node = of_find_matching_node(node, child_match); > + if (!child_node) > return 0; > > /* Technically we could just read the first one, but punish > * DT writers for invalid form. */ > - if (of_gpio_count(halt_node) != 1) > - return -EINVAL; > + if (of_gpio_count(child_node) != 1) { > + ret = -EINVAL; > + goto err_put; > + } > > /* Get the gpio number relative to the dynamic base. */ > - gpio = of_get_gpio_flags(halt_node, 0, &flags); > - if (!gpio_is_valid(gpio)) > - return -EINVAL; > + gpio = of_get_gpio_flags(child_node, 0, &flags); > + if (!gpio_is_valid(gpio)) { > + ret = -EINVAL; > + gotot err_put; > + } > > err = gpio_request(gpio, "gpio-halt"); > if (err) { > printk(KERN_ERR "gpio-halt: error requesting GPIO %d.\n", > gpio); > - halt_node = NULL; > - return err; > + ret = err;
Sorry for not seeing and asking before, but why do you need 'ret'? Can't you use the existing 'err' in place in this whole patch?
> + goto err_put; > } > > trigger = (flags == OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW); > @@ -105,15 +111,15 @@ static int gpio_halt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > gpio_direction_output(gpio, !trigger); > > /* Now get the IRQ which tells us when the power button is hit */ > - irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(halt_node, 0); > + irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(child_node, 0); > err = request_irq(irq, gpio_halt_irq, IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING | > - IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING, "gpio-halt", halt_node); > + IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING, "gpio-halt", child_node); > if (err) { > printk(KERN_ERR "gpio-halt: error requesting IRQ %d for " > "GPIO %d.\n", irq, gpio); > gpio_free(gpio); > - halt_node = NULL; > - return err; > + ret = err; > + goto err_put; > } > > /* Register our halt function */ > @@ -122,8 +128,12 @@ static int gpio_halt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > printk(KERN_INFO "gpio-halt: registered GPIO %d (%d trigger, %d" > " irq).\n", gpio, trigger, irq); > + ret = 0; > + halt_node = of_node_get(child_node);
LGTM, but my preferred style would be: halt_node = child_node; return 0;
I'm not a maintainer, so this is just my opinion and it is mostly a mater of taste.
CJ
> > - return 0; > +err_put: > + of_node_put(child_node); > + return ret; > } > > static int gpio_halt_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > @@ -139,6 +149,7 @@ static int gpio_halt_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > gpio_free(gpio); > > + of_node_put(halt_node); > halt_node = NULL; > } >
| |