Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2024-08-20 10:16:40)
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 10:01:07AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2024-08-20 03:16:09)
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 03:38:19PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > + ptr = devres_alloc(devm_typec_switch_unregister, sizeof(*ptr), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!ptr)
> > > > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > > +
> > > > + switch_dev = typec_switch_register(parent ,desc);
>
> (Side note: wrong location of the white space)
Thanks.
>
> > > > + if (!IS_ERR(switch_dev)) {
>
> (Side note: positive conditional is okay)
>
> > > > + *ptr = switch_dev;
> > > > + devres_add(parent, ptr);
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + devres_free(ptr);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > devm_add_action_or_reset() ?
> >
> > No. We don't want to call the 'action' devm_typec_switch_unregister()
> > when it fails because that would unregister a switch that has never been
> > registered.
>
> Hmm... With devm_add_action_or_reset() we first do things and then try to add
> them to the managed resources. In that case it won't be like you described.
>
> What do I miss?
>
I believe you've missed that this is a wrapper around struct device and
the error path is different (put_device() vs. device_unregister()).
