On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:08 AM ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:10:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 1:28 PM ChiaEn Wu <peterwu.pub@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > This commit add support for the Type-C & Power Delivery controller in > > > > This commit add -> Add > > > Upper case? Or rewrite it as 'This commit is to add .....'? Please, read this documentation [1] for better understanding. It should clarify this and perhaps other possible questions. [1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#describe-your-changes > > > MediaTek MT6370 IC. ... > > > + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, priv->irq, NULL, > > > + mt6370_irq_handler, IRQF_ONESHOT, > > > + dev_name(dev), priv); > > > + if (ret) { > > > > > + tcpci_unregister_port(priv->tcpci); > > > > This is wrong. > > You mixed devm_ with non-devm. Either drop devm_ *after* the first > > non-devm_ call, or convert everything to be managed. > > > How about to add 'devm_add_action_or_reset' for tcpci_unregister_port? > This will convert all as 'devm_' version. I think it would work, that wrapper was designed to cover cases like this. > > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to allocate irq\n"); > > > + } ... > > > +static int mt6370_tcpc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > +{ > > > + struct mt6370_priv *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > > > > + disable_irq(priv->irq); > > > > Why? > > An ugly workaround due to ordering issues in ->probe()? > > > Yes, due to the ordering in probe. > 'bus remove' will be called before device resource releases. > > Like as you said, another way is to convert all as non-devm > version after 'tcpci_unregister_port'. > > If to keep the original order, 'disable_irq' before > 'tcpci_unregister_port' can make the flow more safe. > > Or you can think one case if irq triggers after > 'tcpci_unregister_port'. Null pointer occurs. > > Anyway, in next revision, I'll convert all to be 'devm_' version. > For this remove callback, only 'dev_pm_clear_wake_irq' and > 'device_init_wakeup' will be kept. > > Is this better? Sounds like a plan! > > > + tcpci_unregister_port(priv->tcpci); > > > + dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&pdev->dev); > > > + device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, false); > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
