Hi Dan, hi Jernej,
W dniu 23.11.2021 o 15:59, Dan Carpenter pisze:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:09:03PM +0100, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c b/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c
index ab2467998d29..8c3de31f51b3 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c
@@ -905,6 +905,10 @@ static int hantro_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
return PTR_ERR(vpu->clocks[0].clk);
}
+ vpu->resets = devm_reset_control_array_get(&pdev->dev, false, true);
+ if (IS_ERR(vpu->resets))
+ return PTR_ERR(vpu->resets);
+
num_bases = vpu->variant->num_regs ?: 1;
vpu->reg_bases = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, num_bases,
sizeof(*vpu->reg_bases), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -978,10 +982,16 @@ static int hantro_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(vpu->dev);
pm_runtime_enable(vpu->dev);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It looks like this is the pm stuff that we have to unwind on error
+ ret = reset_control_deassert(vpu->resets);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to deassert resets\n");
+ return ret;
^^^^^^^^^^
So this return should be a goto undo_pm_stuff
+ }
+
ret = clk_bulk_prepare(vpu->variant->num_clocks, vpu->clocks);
if (ret) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to prepare clocks\n");
- return ret;
And this return should also have been a goto so it's a bug in the
original code.
So we probably want a separate patch addressing that first, and then
the series proper on top of that.
Regards,
Andrzej
+ goto err_rst_assert;
Before your patch is applied if clk_bulk_prepare() fails, we
simply return on the spot. After the patch is applied not only
do you...
}
ret = v4l2_device_register(&pdev->dev, &vpu->v4l2_dev);
@@ -1037,6 +1047,8 @@ static int hantro_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
v4l2_device_unregister(&vpu->v4l2_dev);
err_clk_unprepare:
clk_bulk_unprepare(vpu->variant->num_clocks, vpu->clocks);
+err_rst_assert:
+ reset_control_assert(vpu->resets);
...revert the effect of reset_control_deassert(), you also...
pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(vpu->dev);
pm_runtime_disable(vpu->dev);
... do pm_*() stuff. Is there any reason why this is needed?
So, yes, it's needed, but you're correct to spot that it's not
consistent.
regards,
dan carpenter
