> rzg2l_irqc_common_init calls of_find_device_by_node, but the > corresponding put_device call is missing. How do you think about to append parentheses to function names (so that they can be distinguished a bit easier from other identifiers)? > Make use of the cleanup interfaces from cleanup.h to call into > __free_put_device (which in turn calls into put_device) when Can it help to influence the understanding of this programming interface by mentioning the usage of a special attribute? > leaving function rzg2l_irqc_common_init and variable "dev" goes > out of scope. > > Mind that we don't want to "put" "dev" when rzg2l_irqc_common_init > completes successfully, therefore assign NULL to "dev" to prevent > __free_put_device from calling into put_device within the successful > path. Will further software design options become applicable here? Can any pointer type be used for the return value (instead of the data type “int”)? > "make coccicheck" will still complain about missing put_device calls, > but those are false positives now. Would you like to discuss any adjustment possibilities for this development tool? … > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ > */ > > #include <linux/bitfield.h> > +#include <linux/cleanup.h> … This header file would usually be included by an other inclusion statement already, wouldn't it? https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc2/source/include/linux/device.h#L33 … > @@ -530,12 +531,12 @@ static int rzg2l_irqc_parse_interrupts(struct rzg2l_irqc_priv *priv, > static int rzg2l_irqc_common_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent, > const struct irq_chip *irq_chip) > { > + struct platform_device *pdev = of_find_device_by_node(node); > + struct device *dev __free(put_device) = pdev ? &pdev->dev : NULL; > struct irq_domain *irq_domain, *parent_domain; > - struct platform_device *pdev; > struct reset_control *resetn; > int ret; > > - pdev = of_find_device_by_node(node); > if (!pdev) > return -ENODEV; … Would you dare to reduce the scopes for any local variables here? https://refactoring.com/catalog/reduceScopeOfVariable.html Regards, Markus
