[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ykatvp3RuNA8IXZ7@google.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 08:46:06 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: twlx030: i2c remove callback cleanup
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:14:28AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > the remove paths of the twl4030 chip can fail and then returns an error
> > code in twl_remove() early. This isn't a good thing, because the device
> > will still go away with some resources not freed.
> > For the twl6030 this cannot happen, and the first patch is just a small
> > cleanup. For the twl4030 the situation is improved a bit: When the
> > failure happens, the dummy slave devices are removed now.
> >
> > Note that twl4030_exit_irq() is incomplete. The irq isn't freed and
> > maybe some more cleanup is missing which might boom if an irq triggers
> > after the device is removed. Not sure that twl6030_exit_irq() is better
> > in this regard.
> >
> > I noticed this issue because I work on making i2c_driver::remove return
> > void as returning a value != 0 there is almost always an error attached
> > to wrong expectations.
>
> It's one merge window ago now that I sent these two patches and didn't
> get any feedback. Did this series fell through the cracks?
Yes they did.
Feel free to submit [RESEND]s any time after 2 weeks with no reply.
They are now on my TODO list.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists