[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YL3lomK79iIuE13f@kuha.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:23:46 +0300
From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] usb: typec: intel_pmc_mux: Put fwnode in error
case during ->probe()
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:09:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> device_get_next_child_node() bumps a reference counting of a returned variable.
> We have to balance it whenever we return to the caller.
>
> Fixes: 6701adfa9693 ("usb: typec: driver for Intel PMC mux control")
> Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/usb/typec/mux/intel_pmc_mux.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/mux/intel_pmc_mux.c b/drivers/usb/typec/mux/intel_pmc_mux.c
> index 46a25b8db72e..134325444e6a 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/typec/mux/intel_pmc_mux.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/mux/intel_pmc_mux.c
> @@ -645,6 +645,7 @@ static int pmc_usb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return 0;
>
> err_remove_ports:
> + fwnode_handle_put(fwnode);
Wouldn't it be more clear to do that in the condition that jumps to
this lable?
> for (i = 0; i < pmc->num_ports; i++) {
> typec_switch_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_sw);
> typec_mux_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_mux);
> --
> 2.31.1
--
heikki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists