Skipping mutex destruction is not critical, but in general if you wish
to free allocated resource, it should be done in reversed order...
As far as I can tell, the ordering is already reversed:
mcnode = device_get_named_child_node(&pdev->dev, "multi-led");
/* ... */
mutex_init(&priv->lock);
/* ... */
fwnode_for_each_child_node(mcnode, fwnode) {
/* ... */
fwnode_handle_put(fwnode);
goto destroy_mutex;
/* ... */
}
/* ... */
destroy_mutex:
mutex_destroy(&priv->lock);
release_mcnode:
fwnode_handle_put(mcnode);
out:
return ret;
+destroy_mutex:
+ mutex_destroy(&priv->lock);
Wrong ordering here and in ->remove().
Don't mix devm_* with non-devm_* calls.
What do you mean by this?
...which is exactly the issue with this code because of the use of
devm_*() calls mixed with non-devm_*() ones.
TL;DR: ordering is broken here. And to fix it you need either a) to
convert all calls to be devm_*(), or b) make them all non-devm, or c)
regroup resource allocation so that all devm followed by non-devm ones.Which non-devm calls are you referring to?
Thanks for your patience,
Sven
