On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:45 AM Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > @@ -1039,3 +1039,50 @@ int of_changeset_add_prop_u32_array(struct of_changeset *ocs,
> > return ret;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_changeset_add_prop_u32_array);
> > +
> > +static int of_changeset_update_prop_helper(struct of_changeset *ocs,
> > + struct device_node *np,
> > + const struct property *pp)
> > +{
> > + struct property *new_pp;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + new_pp = __of_prop_dup(pp, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!new_pp)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + ret = of_changeset_update_property(ocs, np, new_pp);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + kfree(new_pp->name);
> > + kfree(new_pp->value);
> > + kfree(new_pp);
>
> Given that this is the 3rd copy of the freeing logic, does it make
> sense to make __of_prop_free() that's documented to free what was
> returned by __of_prop_dupe()?
Makes sense. There's also one in property_list_free(). I'll add a patch
for it.
ChenYu
