On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:10:57PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2021-05-10 12:50:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > It's easy to miss necessary clean up, e.g. firmware node reference counting, > > during error path in ->probe(). Make it more robust by moving to a single > > point of return. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > > You are now putting the handle even in the success case. Is that > right? Let's put it this way: it's no-op in successful case. But yeah, I would prefer to have a separate case for error, I'll revisit this. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
