linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: sun50i: replace of_node

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

Message-ID: <20240520083522.vvga3aqjg4w3adkj@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 14:05:22 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Cc: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>,
	Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@...il.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: sun50i: replace of_node_put() with
 automatic cleanup handler

On 10-05-24, 18:42, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2024 19:52:33 +0200
> Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
> 
> I haven't tested the error paths yet, but it certainly boots fine on an
> OrangePi Zero3.
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c | 25 ++++++++-----------------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > index ef83e4bf2639..eb47c193269c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > @@ -131,14 +131,14 @@ static const struct of_device_id cpu_opp_match_list[] = {
> >  static bool dt_has_supported_hw(void)
> >  {
> >  	bool has_opp_supported_hw = false;
> > -	struct device_node *np;
> >  	struct device *cpu_dev;
> >  
> >  	cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(0);
> >  	if (!cpu_dev)
> >  		return false;
> >  
> > -	np = dev_pm_opp_of_get_opp_desc_node(cpu_dev);
> > +	struct device_node *np __free(device_node) =
> > +		dev_pm_opp_of_get_opp_desc_node(cpu_dev);

Won't that result in build warning, mixed code and definitions now ?


-- 
viresh