linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] soc: ti: pm33xx: do device

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20240705115413.0000307d@Huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:54:13 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Kousik Sanagavarapu <five231003@...il.com>
CC: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Santosh
 Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Shuah
 Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, "Javier Carrasco"
	<javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] soc: ti: pm33xx: do device_node auto cleanup

On Wed,  3 Jul 2024 12:25:28 +0530
Kousik Sanagavarapu <five231003@...il.com> wrote:

> Use scope based cleanup instead of manual of_node_put() calls, hence
> simplifying the handling of error paths.
> 
> Suggested-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Kousik Sanagavarapu <five231003@...il.com>
I think you can make use of dev_err_probe() in here to
further simplify things (a bit anyway!)

Jonathan

> ---
>  drivers/soc/ti/pm33xx.c | 20 +++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/pm33xx.c b/drivers/soc/ti/pm33xx.c
> index 8e983c3c4e03..40988c45ed00 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/ti/pm33xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/pm33xx.c
> @@ -383,10 +383,9 @@ static void am33xx_pm_free_sram(void)
>   */
>  static int am33xx_pm_alloc_sram(void)
>  {
> -	struct device_node *np;
> -	int ret = 0;
> +	struct device_node *np __free(device_node) =
> +			of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "ti,omap3-mpu");
>  
> -	np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "ti,omap3-mpu");
>  	if (!np) {
>  		np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "ti,omap4-mpu");
>  		if (!np) {
> @@ -400,24 +399,21 @@ static int am33xx_pm_alloc_sram(void)
>  	if (!sram_pool) {
>  		dev_err(pm33xx_dev, "PM: %s: Unable to get sram pool for ocmcram\n",
>  			__func__);
> -		ret = -ENODEV;
> -		goto mpu_put_node;
> +		return -ENODEV;
>  	}
>  
>  	sram_pool_data = of_gen_pool_get(np, "pm-sram", 1);
>  	if (!sram_pool_data) {
>  		dev_err(pm33xx_dev, "PM: %s: Unable to get sram data pool for ocmcram\n",
>  			__func__);
> -		ret = -ENODEV;
> -		goto mpu_put_node;
> +		return -ENODEV;
>  	}
>  
>  	ocmcram_location = gen_pool_alloc(sram_pool, *pm_sram->do_wfi_sz);
>  	if (!ocmcram_location) {
>  		dev_err(pm33xx_dev, "PM: %s: Unable to allocate memory from ocmcram\n",
>  			__func__);
> -		ret = -ENOMEM;
> -		goto mpu_put_node;
> +		return -ENOMEM;
Why not dev_err_probe()?
Seems to only be called from a probe() callback.

>  	}
>  
>  	ocmcram_location_data = gen_pool_alloc(sram_pool_data,
> @@ -425,12 +421,10 @@ static int am33xx_pm_alloc_sram(void)
>  	if (!ocmcram_location_data) {
>  		dev_err(pm33xx_dev, "PM: Unable to allocate memory from ocmcram\n");
>  		gen_pool_free(sram_pool, ocmcram_location, *pm_sram->do_wfi_sz);
> -		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		return -ENOMEM;
I doubt the ordering matters so can probably do dev_err_probe() in here.
>  	}
>  
> -mpu_put_node:
> -	of_node_put(np);
> -	return ret;
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static int am33xx_pm_rtc_setup(void)