Hi Boris,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 7 May
2020 14:11:03 +0200:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:00:33 +0200
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > +
> > +static void anfc_chips_cleanup(struct arasan_nfc *nfc)
> > +{
> > + struct anand *anand, *tmp;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(anand, tmp, &nfc->chips, node) {
> > + nand_release(&anand->chip);
>
> ret = mtd_device_unregister(nand_to_mtd(&anand->chip));
> WARN_ON(ret);
> nand_cleanup(&anand->chip);
>
> Or maybe add this WARN_ON() to nand_release() so we don't have to ask
> people to use mtd_device_unregister() + nand_cleanup().
I don't get your point here? I'm not against adding a warn_on between
both functions but it's not related to this driver?
> We really
> should fix that at some point (allocate nand_chip and mtd_info
> separately and leave a dummy mtd_info object with all hooks returning
> ENODEV when the unregister fails).
Yes, we should fix that.
>
> > + list_del(&anand->node);
> > + }
> > +}
Thanks,
Miquèl
