Hi Andy
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMI v3.2 pincontrol
> protocol basic support
>
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 10:22:23AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/scmi_protocol.h>
> > +#include <linux/slab.h>
>
> Please, follow IWYU principle, a lot of headers are missed.
ok. I will try to figure out. BTW, is there an easy way to filter
out what is missed?
>
> > +#include "common.h"
> > +#include "protocols.h"
>
> ...
>
> > + ret = scmi_pinctrl_get_pin_info(ph, selector,
> > + &pi->pins[selector]);
>
> It's netter as a single line.
I try to follow 80 max chars per SCMI coding style. If Sudeep and Cristian
is ok, I could use a single line.
>
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + }
>
> ...
>
> > +static int scmi_pinctrl_protocol_init(const struct
> > +scmi_protocol_handle *ph) {
> > + int ret;
> > + u32 version;
> > + struct scmi_pinctrl_info *pinfo;
> > +
> > + ret = ph->xops->version_get(ph, &version);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + dev_dbg(ph->dev, "Pinctrl Version %d.%d\n",
> > + PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(version),
> PROTOCOL_REV_MINOR(version));
> > +
> > + pinfo = devm_kzalloc(ph->dev, sizeof(*pinfo), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!pinfo)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + ret = scmi_pinctrl_attributes_get(ph, pinfo);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + pinfo->pins = devm_kcalloc(ph->dev, pinfo->nr_pins,
> > + sizeof(*pinfo->pins), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!pinfo->pins)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + pinfo->groups = devm_kcalloc(ph->dev, pinfo->nr_groups,
> > + sizeof(*pinfo->groups), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!pinfo->groups)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + pinfo->functions = devm_kcalloc(ph->dev, pinfo->nr_functions,
> > + sizeof(*pinfo->functions),
> GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!pinfo->functions)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + pinfo->version = version;
> > +
> > + return ph->set_priv(ph, pinfo, version);
>
> Same comments as per previous version. devm_ here is simply wrong.
> It breaks the order of freeing resources.
>
> I.o.w. I see *no guarantee* that these init-deinit functions will be properly
> called from the respective probe-remove. Moreover the latter one may also
> have its own devm allocations (which are rightfully placed) and you get
> completely out of control the resource management.
I see an old thread.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/ZJ78hBcjAhiU+ZBO@e120937-lin/#t
The free in deinit is not to free the ones alloced in init, it is to free the ones
alloced such as in scmi_pinctrl_get_function_info
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> > +}
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
