Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:37:23 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] HID: nvidia-shield: Fix the error handling path of shield_probe() | From | Christophe JAILLET <> |
| |
Le 15/09/2023 à 22:51, Rahul Rameshbabu a écrit : > On Fri, 15 Sep, 2023 22:14:18 +0200 Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >> Le 15/09/2023 à 20:16, Rahul Rameshbabu a écrit : >>> Hi Christophe, >>> On Sat, 26 Aug, 2023 19:42:16 +0200 Christophe JAILLET >>> <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >>>> This serie fixes some missing clean-up function calls in the error handling of >>>> the probe. >>>> >>>> Patch 1 and 2 fix some similar issues introduced in 2 different commits (hence 2 >>>> patches) >>>> >>>> Patch 3 is a proposal to be more future proof. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Note*: I'm not 100% sure that the order of the functions is the best one in >>>> thunderstrike_destroy(), but it is the way it was. >>>> >>>> My personal preference would be to undo things in reverse order they are >>>> allocated, such as: >>>> led_classdev_unregister(&ts->led_dev); >>>> power_supply_unregister(ts->base.battery_dev.psy); >>>> if (ts->haptics_dev) >>>> input_unregister_device(ts->haptics_dev); >>>> ida_free(&thunderstrike_ida, ts->id); >>>> This order was explicitly chnaged by 3ab196f88237, so, as I can't test the >>>> changes on a real harware, I've left it as-is. >>>> >>>> Christophe JAILLET (3): >>>> HID: nvidia-shield: Fix a missing led_classdev_unregister() in the >>>> probe error handling path >>>> HID: nvidia-shield: Fix some missing function calls() in the probe >>>> error handling path >>>> HID: nvidia-shield: Introduce thunderstrike_destroy() >>>> >>>> drivers/hid/hid-nvidia-shield.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- >>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> I was wondering if you have time to address the comments in this >>> submission. If not, I can re-spin the patches with the needed changes in >>> upcoming days. >> >> I can send an update tomorrow, but I'm only working with -next, so should using >> for-6.6/nvidia (as said in your comment in #1/3) be a must have, then it would >> be more convenient for me if you make the changes by yourself. > > Luckily, it does not have to be on top of for-6.6/nvidia to add the fix > I mentioned with regards to the led_classdev flag for not trying to > power off the led when unregistering the led_classdev. That should still > merge nicely on top of for-6.6/nvidia. The main reason I mentioned it > was due to the commit living there with regards to the issue involving > unregistering the led_classdev without the mentioned flag.
Well, because of your comment on patch #1/3, I would prefer you to make the relevant changes.
Understanding this code if more time consuming than I first expected.
CJ
> > -- > Thanks for the patches, > > Rahul Rameshbabu > >> >> CJ >> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> Rahul Rameshbabu >>> >
| |