On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 10:23:06AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Boyd (2024-08-20 10:19:48)
> > 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()).
>
> Or you're suggesting devm_add_action_or_reset() after registering the
> switch? Sorry it wasn't clear to me.
Yes, after successful switch registration.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
