On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:00:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 04:43:39PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:41:13 +0100 > > <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Add __free() based cleanup function for platform_device_put(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/linux/platform_device.h | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/platform_device.h b/include/linux/platform_device.h > > > index d422db6eec63..606533b88f44 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/platform_device.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/platform_device.h > > > @@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ extern int platform_device_add_data(struct platform_device *pdev, > > > extern int platform_device_add(struct platform_device *pdev); > > > extern void platform_device_del(struct platform_device *pdev); > > > extern void platform_device_put(struct platform_device *pdev); > > > +DEFINE_FREE(platform_device_put, struct platform_device *, if (_T) platform_device_put(_T)) > > > > > > struct platform_driver { > > > int (*probe)(struct platform_device *); > > > > +CC Greg KH and Rafael. > > > > Makes sure to include them on v14 as this needs review from a driver core point > > of view I think. > > Why is this needed for a platform device? This feels like you will have > to do more work to "keep" the reference on the normal path than you to > today to release the reference on the error path, right? Have a pointer > to a patch that uses this? Ah, is it this one: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241014164955.00003439@xxxxxxxxxx/ ? If so, no, that's an abuse of a platform device, don't do that, make a REAL device on the bus that this device lives on. If it doesn't live on a real bus, then put it on the virtual bus but do NOT abuse the platform device layer for something like this. thanks, greg k-h