[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIsoWBxb8aGdJ4ja@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 18:03:52 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] of/platform: Propagate firmware node by calling
device_set_node()
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 06:01:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:59:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:52:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Insulate of_device_alloc() and of_amba_device_create() from possible
> > > changes to fwnode_handle implementation by using device_set_node()
> > > instead of open-coding dev->dev.fwnode assignments.
> >
> > Side note. When I preparing this change I have noticed a lot of
> >
> > dev_set_name(... dev_name())
>
> Plus
>
> dev_set_name(dev, ...)
> ...
> dev_set_name(dev, ...)
>
> on the same device will also give a memory leak.
Ah, seems false alarm, the kobject_set_name_vargs() frees the old one.
Sorry for the noise for second point. But the first one still applies.
> > in the code which seems to me problematic in two ways:
> > 1) (minor) the dev_set_name() may fail, no checks are there;
> > 2) (major?) the above construction leaks memory.
> >
> > Is it on purpose (esp. second point)? If no, can it be fixed?
> > Note, I'm not familiar with OF platform code, so I would help
> > reviewing the change, but that's it.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists