Le 08/11/2021 à 20:48, Mark Gross a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 08:57:07PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
If 'led_classdev_register()' fails, some additional resources should be
released.
Add the missing 'i8042_remove_filter()' and 'lis3lv02d_remove_fs()' calls
that are already in the remove function but are missing here.
Fixes: a4c724d0723b ("platform: hp_accel: add a i8042 filter to remove HPQ6000 data from kb bus stream")
Fixes: 9e0c79782143 ("lis3lv02d: merge with leds hp disk")
Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/platform/x86/hp_accel.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/hp_accel.c b/drivers/platform/x86/hp_accel.c
index b183967ecfb7..435a91fe2568 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/hp_accel.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/hp_accel.c
@@ -331,9 +331,11 @@ static int lis3lv02d_probe(struct platform_device *device)
adding some lines of context:
326 /* filter to remove HPQ6000 accelerometer data
327 * from keyboard bus stream */
328 if (strstr(dev_name(&device->dev), "HPQ6000"))
329 i8042_install_filter(hp_accel_i8042_filter);
330
INIT_WORK(&hpled_led.work, delayed_set_status_worker);
ret = led_classdev_register(NULL, &hpled_led.led_classdev);
if (ret) {
+ i8042_remove_filter(hp_accel_i8042_filter);
This filter was added under a conditional. Should it not be removed under a
similar conditional?
Agreed that it looks odd, but in the remove function, we already don't
have the conditional.
Moreover, in, we have 'i8042_remove_filter()':
if (i8042_platform_filter != filter) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
So, if 'i8042_install_filter(hp_accel_i8042_filter)' is not called, the
removal will be a no-op.
lis3lv02d_joystick_disable(&lis3_dev);
lis3lv02d_poweroff(&lis3_dev);
flush_work(&hpled_led.work);
+ lis3lv02d_remove_fs(&lis3_dev);
where was the fs ever added?
In 'lis3lv02d_init_device()' (see [1]), like what is undone with
'lis3lv02d_joystick_disable()' and 'lis3lv02d_poweroff()'.
'lis3lv02d_remove_fs()' is also already part of the remove function.
I guess that having a 'lis3lv02d_uninit_device()' would be much more
cleaner.
[1]:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.15.1/source/drivers/misc/lis3lv02d/lis3lv02d.c#L1188
CJ
--mark
return ret;
}
--
2.30.2
