linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: em: use the managed version of gpiochip_add

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mf0--Yc+S_EEiFxSXbip7JX3y8Qz1fsxFPTUt_fR6dOTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 21:26:58 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: em: use the managed version of gpiochip_add_data()

wt., 9 lip 2019 o 20:49 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> napisał(a):
>
> Hi Bartosz,
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 5:46 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> >
> > Use the managed variant of gpiochip_add_data() and remove the call to
> > gpiochip_remove().
> >
> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c | 4 +---
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c
> > index 40f8c38bec1c..299101d25fa8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c
> > @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ static int em_gio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >                 goto err1;
> >         }
> >
> > -       ret = gpiochip_add_data(gpio_chip, p);
> > +       ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, gpio_chip, p);
> >         if (ret) {
> >                 dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to add GPIO controller\n");
> >                 goto err1;
> > @@ -376,8 +376,6 @@ static int em_gio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> >         struct em_gio_priv *p = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >
> > -       gpiochip_remove(&p->gpio_chip);
> > -
> >         irq_domain_remove(p->irq_domain);
>
> On a second thought, is it safe to call irq_domain_remove() before
> gpiochip_remove() (which calls gpiochip_irqchip_remove())?
>

Good call. I think the most elegant solution here would be to use
devm_add_action() to keep the ordering right. I'll send a follow-up
tomorrow morning.

Bart

> >         return 0;
>
> >  }
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                         Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds