[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2aab2c4f-cff5-f13d-e879-a5b1b00ef9c7@microchip.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 03:04:07 +0000
From: <Hari.PrasathGE@...rochip.com>
To: <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
CC: <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: atmel: add missing clk_disable_unprepare()
Hello Claudiu,
On 23/08/23 10:29 am, claudiu beznea wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On 8/22/23 10:04, Hari Prasath Gujulan Elango wrote:
>> Fix the below smatch warning:
>>
>> drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c:167 atmel_hlcdc_pwm_apply() warn: 'new_clk' from clk_prepare_enable() not released on lines: 112,137,142,149.
>>
>
> Can you add a fixes tag?
>
yes I will add it.
>> Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath Gujulan Elango <Hari.PrasathGE@...rochip.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
>> index 96a709a9d49a..ce46f6c74a14 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
>> @@ -108,8 +108,10 @@ static int atmel_hlcdc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>> ATMEL_HLCDC_CFG(0),
>> ATMEL_HLCDC_CLKPWMSEL,
>> gencfg);
>> - if (ret)
>> + if (ret) {
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(new_clk);
>> return ret;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> do_div(pwmcval, state->period);
>> @@ -133,20 +135,27 @@ static int atmel_hlcdc_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *c, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>> ATMEL_HLCDC_PWMPS_MASK |
>> ATMEL_HLCDC_PWMPOL,
>> pwmcfg);
>> - if (ret)
>> + if (ret) {
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(new_clk);
>> return ret;
>> + }
>>
>> ret = regmap_write(hlcdc->regmap, ATMEL_HLCDC_EN,
>> ATMEL_HLCDC_PWM);
>> - if (ret)
>> + if (ret) {
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(new_clk);
>> return ret;
>> + }
>>
>> ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(hlcdc->regmap, ATMEL_HLCDC_SR,
>> status,
>> status & ATMEL_HLCDC_PWM,
>> 10, 0);
>> - if (ret)
>> + if (ret) {
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(new_clk);
>
> Can you keep a single failure point for all these?
>
> Also, you have to set chip->cur_clk = NULL otherwise next time your apply
> will get executed the new_clk will not be enabled.
>
I see that new_clk is assigned to cur_clk in the if (state->enabled)
block and clk_disable_unprepare() is invoked only in the else block for
cur_clk and its made NULL. I will cleanup all of this at a single point
and resend v2.
Thanks,
Hari
> Thank you,
> Claudiu Beznea
>
>> return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> } else {
>> ret = regmap_write(hlcdc->regmap, ATMEL_HLCDC_DIS,
>> ATMEL_HLCDC_PWM);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists