On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:31 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/25/21 13:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 12:42 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> >> +int skl_int3472_get_sensor_adev_and_name(struct device *dev,
> >> + struct acpi_device **sensor_adev_ret,
> >> + const char **name_ret)
> >> +{
> >> + struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
> >> + struct acpi_device *sensor;
> >> + int ret = 0;
> >> +
> >> + sensor = acpi_dev_get_first_consumer_dev(adev);
> >> + if (!sensor) {
> >> + dev_err(dev, "INT3472 seems to have no dependents.\n");
> >> + return -ENODEV;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + *name_ret = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, I2C_DEV_NAME_FORMAT,
> >> + acpi_dev_name(sensor));
> >> + if (!*name_ret)
> >> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + if (ret == 0 && sensor_adev_ret)
> >> + *sensor_adev_ret = sensor;
> >> + else
> >> + acpi_dev_put(sensor);
> >> +
> >> + return ret;
> >
> > The error path is twisted a bit including far staying ret=0 assignment.
> >
> > Can it be
> >
> > int ret;
> > ...
> > *name_ret = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, I2C_DEV_NAME_FORMAT,
> > acpi_dev_name(sensor));
> > if (!*name_ret) {
> > acpi_dev_put(sensor);
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > }
> >
> > if (sensor_adev_ret)
> > *sensor_adev_ret = sensor;
> >
> > return 0;
> >
> > ?
>
> That misses an acpi_dev_put(sensor) when sensor_adev_ret == NULL.
else
acpi_dev_put(...);
?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
