On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:10:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 1:28 PM ChiaEn Wu <peterwu.pub@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The MT6370 is a highly-integrated smart power management IC, which > > includes a single cell Li-Ion/Li-Polymer switching battery charger, > > a USB Type-C & Power Delivery (PD) controller, dual Flash LED current > > sources, a RGB LED driver, a backlight WLED driver, a display bias > > driver and a general LDO for portable devices. > > > > This commit add support for the Type-C & Power Delivery controller in > > This commit add -> Add > Upper case? Or rewrite it as 'This commit is to add .....'? > > > MediaTek MT6370 IC. > > > > +static int mt6370_tcpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > +{ > > + struct mt6370_priv *priv; > > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > + int ret; > > + > > + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!priv) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + priv->dev = dev; > > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, priv); > > + > > + priv->tcpci_data.regmap = dev_get_regmap(dev->parent, NULL); > > + if (!priv->tcpci_data.regmap) > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENODEV, "Failed to init regmap\n"); > > + > > + ret = mt6370_check_vendor_info(priv); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > > + if (priv->irq < 0) > > + return priv->irq; > > + > > + /* Assign TCPCI feature and ops */ > > + priv->tcpci_data.auto_discharge_disconnect = 1; > > + priv->tcpci_data.init = mt6370_tcpc_init; > > + priv->tcpci_data.set_vconn = mt6370_tcpc_set_vconn; > > + > > + priv->vbus = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vbus"); > > + if (!IS_ERR(priv->vbus)) > > + priv->tcpci_data.set_vbus = mt6370_tcpc_set_vbus; > > + > > + priv->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(dev, &priv->tcpci_data); > > + if (IS_ERR(priv->tcpci)) > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(priv->tcpci), > > + "Failed to register tcpci port\n"); > > + > > + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, priv->irq, NULL, > > + mt6370_irq_handler, IRQF_ONESHOT, > > + dev_name(dev), priv); > > + if (ret) { > > > + tcpci_unregister_port(priv->tcpci); > > This is wrong. > You mixed devm_ with non-devm. Either drop devm_ *after* the first > non-devm_ call, or convert everything to be managed. > How about to add 'devm_add_action_or_reset' for tcpci_unregister_port? This will convert all as 'devm_' version. > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to allocate irq\n"); > > + } > > + > > + device_init_wakeup(dev, true); > > + dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, priv->irq); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int mt6370_tcpc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > +{ > > + struct mt6370_priv *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > > + disable_irq(priv->irq); > > Why? > An ugly workaround due to ordering issues in ->probe()? > Yes, due to the ordering in probe. 'bus remove' will be called before device resource releases. Like as you said, another way is to convert all as non-devm version after 'tcpci_unregister_port'. If to keep the original order, 'disable_irq' before 'tcpci_unregister_port' can make the flow more safe. Or you can think one case if irq triggers after 'tcpci_unregister_port'. Null pointer occurs. Anyway, in next revision, I'll convert all to be 'devm_' version. For this remove callback, only 'dev_pm_clear_wake_irq' and 'device_init_wakeup' will be kept. Is this better? > > + tcpci_unregister_port(priv->tcpci); > > + dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&pdev->dev); > > + device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, false); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko