On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 13:02 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +/**
> > + * devm_insert_resource() - insert an I/O or memory resource
> > + * @dev: device for which to produce the resource
> > + * @root: root of the resource tree
> > + * @new: descriptor of the new resource
> > + *
> > + * This is a device-managed version of insert_resource(). There is
> > usually
> > + * no need to release resources requested by this function explicitly
> > since
>
> s/explicitly since
> /explicitly, since
Will do.
> > + * that will be taken care of when the device is unbound from its bus
> > driver.
> > + * If for some reason the resource needs to be released explicitly,
> > because
> > + * of ordering issues for example, bus drivers must call
> > devm_remove_resource()
> > + * rather than the regular remove_resource().
> > + *
> > + * devm_insert_resource() is intended for producers of resources, such
> > as
> > + * FW modules and bus drivers.
> > + *
> > + * Returns 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
> > + */
> > +int devm_insert_resource(struct device *dev, struct resource *root,
> > + struct resource *new)
> > +{
> > + struct resource **ptr;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ptr = devres_alloc(__devm_remove_resource, sizeof(*ptr),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!ptr)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + *ptr = new;
> > +
> > + ret = insert_resource(root, new);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "unable to insert resource: %pR (%d)\n",
> > new, ret);
> > + devres_free(ptr);
> > + return -EBUSY;
>
> Why not return 'ret' here, instead of -EBUSY?
Right, I will change it to 'return ret'.
> > + }
> > +
> > + devres_add(dev, ptr);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_insert_resource);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * devm_remove_resource() - remove a previously inserted resource
> > + * @dev: device for which to remove the resource
> > + * @old: descriptor of the resource
> > + *
> > + * Remove a resource previously inserted using devm_insert_resource().
> > + *
> > + * devm_remove_resource() is intended for producers of resources, such
> > as
> > + * FW modules and bus drivers.
> > + */
> > +void devm_remove_resource(struct device *dev, struct resource *old)
> > +{
> > + WARN_ON(devres_release(dev, __devm_remove_resource,
> > devm_resource_match,
> > + old));
>
> So generally we don't put functions with side effects into WARN_ON()s.
> Just like BUG_ON(), in the future it might be disabled on certain
> Kconfigs, etc. - and it's also bad for readability.
>
> Also, please use WARN_ON_ONCE().
I see. Will change to test with WARN_ON_ONCE(ret).
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_remove_resource);
> > +
> > +/*
> > * Called from init/main.c to reserve IO ports.
> > */
> > #define MAXRESERVE 4
>
> Looks good to me otherwise.
Great! I will send an updated patch as "[PATCH v2-UPDATE2 3/4]".
Thanks,
-Toshi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
