lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] HID: nvidia-shield: Fix the error handling path of shield_probe()
From
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
>>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-09-17 22:40    [W:0.075 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site