On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 02:41:58PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote: > > This was found by coccicheck: > > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c:304:2-8: ERROR: missing put_device; > > call of_find_device_by_node on line 255, but without a corresponding > > object release within this function. > > How do you think about to add a wording according to “imperative mood” > for your change description? > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=31f4f5b495a62c9a8b15b1c3581acd5efeb9af8c#n151 Are you a bot? > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c > … > > @@ -352,7 +352,14 @@ static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > … > > pdata->free(dm_timer); > > -put: > > +err_request_timer: > > + > > +err_timer_property: > > +err_platdata: > > + > > + put_device(&timer_pdev->dev); > > Would the use of the label “put_device” be more appropriate? > > > > +err_find_timer_pdev: > > + > > of_node_put(timer); > … > > Would the use of the label “put_node” be better here? > > > > @@ -372,6 +379,8 @@ static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > omap->pdata->free(omap->dm_timer); > > > > + put_device(&omap->dm_timer_pdev->dev); > > + > > mutex_destroy(&omap->mutex); > > > > return 0; > > I suggest to omit a few blank lines. And I like it the way it is. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
