On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:37:14 -0400 Aren Moynihan <aren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 04:38:37PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 10:19:57AM -0400, Aren Moynihan wrote: > > > The vdd and leda supplies must be powered on for the chip to function > > > and can be powered off during system suspend. > > > > > > Co-developed-by: Ondrej Jirman <megi@xxxxxx> > > > > Missing SoB. Please, read Submitting Patches documentation for understanding > > what has to be done here. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Aren Moynihan <aren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > ... > > > > > Notes: > > > I'm not sure what the proper way to handle attribution for this patch > > > is. It was origionally based on a patch by Ondrej Jirman[1], but I have > > > rewritten a large portion if it. I have included a Co-developed-by tag > > > to indicate this, but haven't sent him this patch, so I'm not sure what > > > to do about a Signed-off-by. > > > > Ah, seems you already aware of this issue. So, either drop Co-developed-by > > (and if you wish you may give a credit in a free form inside commit message) > > or make sure you get his SoB tag. > > Alright, thanks for clarifying that. > > > > mutex_init(&data->lock); > > > > Somewhere (in the previous patch?) you want to switch to devm_mutex_init(). > > Good catch, it looks like that was being leaked before this refactor. > Yeah that sounds like the right place, I'll include it in v4. Not really on the leaking. Take a look at the cleanup for devm_mutex_init(). It's debug only and not all that useful in most cases. However, it is good to not assume that now we have a devm_mutex_init() available that is easy to use. > > > > + ret = devm_regulator_bulk_get(&client->dev, ARRAY_SIZE(data->supplies), > > > + data->supplies); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret, "get regulators failed\n"); > > > > > + return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret, > > > + "regulator enable failed\n"); > > > > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&client->dev, stk3310_regulators_disable, data); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret, > > > + "failed to register regulator cleanup\n"); > > > > With > > > > struct devuce *dev = &client->dev; > > > > at the top of the function makes these and more lines neater. > > > [snip] > > > > While changing to RCT order here, it seems you have inconsistent approach > > elsewhere (in your own patches!). Please, be consistent with chosen style. > > Sounds easy enough to fix, I'll include these in v4. > > Thanks taking the time to review > - Aren
