On 2024/9/12 6:53, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 6:19 AM Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Use devm_pm_runtime_enable(), devm_request_irq() and
>> devm_spi_register_controller() to simplify code.
>>
>> And also register a callback spi_geni_release_dma_chan() with
>> devm_add_action_or_reset(), to release dma channel in both error
>> and device detach path, which can make sure the release sequence is
>> consistent with the original one.
>>
>> 1. Unregister spi controller.
>> 2. Free the IRQ.
>> 3. Free DMA chans
>> 4. Disable runtime PM.
>>
>> So the remove function can also be removed.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v4:
>> - Correct the "data" of devm_add_action_or_reset().
>> v3:
>> - Land the rest of the cleanups afterwards.
>> ---
>> drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c | 37 +++++++++++++------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c b/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c
>> index 6f4057330444..5cb002d7d4a6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c
>> @@ -632,8 +632,10 @@ static int spi_geni_grab_gpi_chan(struct spi_geni_master *mas)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> -static void spi_geni_release_dma_chan(struct spi_geni_master *mas)
>> +static void spi_geni_release_dma_chan(void *data)
>> {
>> + struct spi_geni_master *mas = data;
>> +
>> if (mas->rx) {
>> dma_release_channel(mas->rx);
>> mas->rx = NULL;
>> @@ -1132,6 +1134,12 @@ static int spi_geni_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, spi_geni_release_dma_chan, mas);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Unable to add action.\n");
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>
> Use dev_err_probe() to simplify.
>
> ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, spi_geni_release_dma_chan, mas);
> if (ret)
> return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Unable to add action.\n");
It seems that if it only return -ENOMEM or 0, using dev_err_probe() has
not not much value for many community maintainers.
>
>
> Personally I'd also rather that you do the devm_add_action_or_reset()
> call straight in spi_geni_grab_gpi_chan(). That makes it much more
Yes, it will be more clear.
> obvious what's happening. You can still use dev_err_probe() in there
> since it's called (indirectly) from probe. In that case you'd probably
> replace the "return 0;" in that function with just "return
> dev_err_probe(...)".
>
>
>> @@ -1146,33 +1154,15 @@ static int spi_geni_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (mas->cur_xfer_mode == GENI_GPI_DMA)
>> spi->flags = SPI_CONTROLLER_MUST_TX;
>>
>> - ret = request_irq(mas->irq, geni_spi_isr, 0, dev_name(dev), spi);
>> + ret = devm_request_irq(dev, mas->irq, geni_spi_isr, 0, dev_name(dev), spi);
>> if (ret)
>> - goto spi_geni_release_dma;
>> + return ret;
>>
>> - ret = spi_register_controller(spi);
>> + ret = devm_spi_register_controller(dev, spi);
>> if (ret)
>> - goto spi_geni_probe_free_irq;
>> + return ret;
>>
>> return 0;
>
> You no longer need the "if" statement or even to assign to "ret". Just:
>
> return devm_spi_register_controller(dev, spi);
Right!
>
>
> Those are just nits, though. I'd be OK with:
>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ...since Mark has already landed the first two patches, your v5 would
> just contain this one patch.
>
> -Doug
