On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:59 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:54:02AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On 15.02.2023 15:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > @@ -1758,7 +1750,7 @@ static int at91_gpio_of_irq_setup(struct platform_device *pdev, > > > if (!gpiochip_prev) { > > > girq->parent_handler = gpio_irq_handler; > > > girq->num_parents = 1; > > > - girq->parents = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, 1, > > > + girq->parents = devm_kcalloc(dev, girq->num_parents, > > > > There is still the change of the 2nd argument of devm_kcalloc() from 1 -> > > girq->num_parents (no functional change, though) which doesn't match the > > purpose of the patch and is not specified anywhere. Other than this: > > > > Reviewed-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > sizeof(*girq->parents), > > > GFP_KERNEL); > > Thanks for review. I have no time to fix this. So if Linus is okay to take > the first 4 patches, I'm fine. You or somebody else can submit an updated > 5th patch later on. I applied all 5 patches. The num_parents is set to 1 on the line right above and it's the right thing to do, and has a reviewed tag so I don't see the problem with this patch, let's not overinvest in process. Thanks for the very nice cleanups! I applied it locally so it won't be in linux-next until after the merge window closes. Yours, Linus Walleij