On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 02:06:11PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:10:18AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Once the series is completely applied, the pwm_chip isn't allocated > > using devm_kzalloc any more. You're only looking at an intermediate > > state where I push the broken lifetime tracking from all drivers into a > > single function in the core that is then fixed after all drivers are > > converted to it. > > Indeed, I missed that devm_pwm_alloc() got changed later in the series > to not call devm_kzalloc(). The naming is quite unfortunate, a > devm_*_alloc() function really gives a strong hint that the > corresponding cleanup at device remove time will be a free(), not a > put() :-S That's pretty confusing for the readers. Note there is a v4 in the meantime. My suggestion to rename pwmchip_alloc() to pwmchip_get_new() could address this concern. Would you like that? I didn't get any feedback about it when I suggested it somewhere in the v3 thread. (I'm not sure I like it, given that foo_alloc() is quite usual for other subsystems.) > > If you find issues with the complete series applied, please tell me. > > One thing I still dislike is forcing drivers to dynamically allocate the > pwm_chip series. A struct pwm_chip must be allocated dynamically as it's reference counted by a struct device. Given that nearly all drivers allocate their driver data dynamically, too, this isn't a big issue IMO. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
