Hi Boris,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 7 May
2020 17:24:53 +0200:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 17:13:11 +0200
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 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've asked people to not call nand_release() but instead call
> mtd_device_unregister()+nand_cleanup(), which is not done here. My
> point is, if even us can't get it right, maybe it's a sign we should
> instead patch nand_release() to do the right thing.
It's in my todo-list, yes. What about just dropping nand_release
entirely? So that nand_scan_tail as its nand cleanup and
mtd_device_register as its mtd_device_unregister and everything will be
much clearer?
