[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <bc0a60ef-bdf7-4f48-8215-891cb1efbdf5@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 15:41:44 -0500
From: "Mark Pearson" <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
To: "Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: platform_profile: Improve platform_profile_unregister
Hi Kurt
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025, at 2:03 PM, Kurt Borja wrote:
> Drivers usually call this method on error/exit paths and do not check
> for it's return value, which is always 0 anyway, so make it void. This
> is safe to do as currently all drivers use
> devm_platform_profile_register().
>
I was worried I had mucked that up with the revert done in thinkpad_acpi? But it's not checking the return there so I think it's fine
> While at it improve the style and make the function safer by checking
> for IS_ERR_OR_NULL before dereferencing the device pointer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>
> ---
> Hi all,
>
> I made a little modification that I forgot in the last version.
>
> Rafael, please tell me if you prefer different commits for this. Also
> should we WARN_ON(IS_ERR_OR_NULL)?
>
> Based on the acpi branch of the linux-pm tree.
>
> ~ Kurt
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Get reference to pprof after checking for IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev)
> - CC Mark Pearson (sorry!)
>
> drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c | 19 +++++++++----------
> include/linux/platform_profile.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> index fc92e43d0fe9..ed9c0cc9ea9c 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> @@ -569,24 +569,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(platform_profile_register);
> /**
> * platform_profile_remove - Unregisters a platform profile class device
> * @dev: Class device
> - *
> - * Return: 0
> */
> -int platform_profile_remove(struct device *dev)
> +void platform_profile_remove(struct device *dev)
> {
> - struct platform_profile_handler *pprof = to_pprof_handler(dev);
> - int id;
> + struct platform_profile_handler *pprof;
> +
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev))
> + return;
> +
> + pprof = to_pprof_handler(dev);
> +
> guard(mutex)(&profile_lock);
>
> - id = pprof->minor;
> + ida_free(&platform_profile_ida, pprof->minor);
> device_unregister(&pprof->dev);
> - ida_free(&platform_profile_ida, id);
>
> sysfs_notify(acpi_kobj, NULL, "platform_profile");
> -
> sysfs_update_group(acpi_kobj, &platform_profile_group);
> -
> - return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(platform_profile_remove);
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/platform_profile.h
> b/include/linux/platform_profile.h
> index 8ab5b0e8eb2c..d5499eca9e1d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/platform_profile.h
> +++ b/include/linux/platform_profile.h
> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ struct platform_profile_ops {
> struct device *platform_profile_register(struct device *dev, const
> char *name,
> void *drvdata,
> const struct platform_profile_ops *ops);
> -int platform_profile_remove(struct device *dev);
> +void platform_profile_remove(struct device *dev);
> struct device *devm_platform_profile_register(struct device *dev,
> const char *name,
> void *drvdata,
> const struct platform_profile_ops *ops);
>
> base-commit: 3e3e377dd1f300bbdd230533686ce9c9f4f8a90d
> --
> 2.48.1
Looks good to me
Reviewed-by: Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
Mark
Powered by blists - more mailing lists