Hi Niklas,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:02:46PM +0200, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> In preparation for adding a new media graph layout move the code reuse
> of the parallel notifier setup from probe directly to the current media
> graph initialization function. This is needed as there will be no
> parallel interface in the new graph layout.
>
> Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-core.c | 48 ++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-core.c b/drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-core.c
> index da23d55aa72b7f0d..81574bf33116ad59 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-core.c
> @@ -702,9 +702,8 @@ static int rvin_parallel_init(struct rvin_dev *vin)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - /* If using mc, it's fine not to have any input registered. */
> if (!vin->parallel.asd)
> - return vin->info->use_mc ? 0 : -ENODEV;
> + return -ENODEV;
Nit: isn't it better to keep the error handling here ?
>
> vin_dbg(vin, "Found parallel subdevice %pOF\n",
> to_of_node(vin->parallel.asd->match.fwnode));
> @@ -955,11 +954,9 @@ static int rvin_mc_parse_of_graph(struct rvin_dev *vin)
>
> static void rvin_csi2_cleanup(struct rvin_dev *vin)
> {
> - if (!vin->info->use_mc)
> - return;
> -
> rvin_group_notifier_cleanup(vin);
> rvin_group_put(vin);
> + rvin_free_controls(vin);
> }
>
> static int rvin_csi2_init(struct rvin_dev *vin)
> @@ -979,11 +976,18 @@ static int rvin_csi2_init(struct rvin_dev *vin)
> if (ret)
> goto err_controls;
>
> - ret = rvin_mc_parse_of_graph(vin);
> - if (ret)
> + /* It's OK to not have a parallel subdevice. */
> + ret = rvin_parallel_init(vin);
> + if (ret && ret != -ENODEV)
> goto err_group;
>
> + ret = rvin_mc_parse_of_graph(vin);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_parallel;
> +
> return 0;
> +err_parallel:
> + rvin_parallel_cleanup(vin);
> err_group:
> rvin_group_put(vin);
> err_controls:
> @@ -1469,27 +1473,20 @@ static int rcar_vin_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, vin);
>
> - if (vin->info->use_mc) {
> + if (vin->info->use_mc)
> ret = rvin_csi2_init(vin);
> - if (ret)
> - goto error_dma_unregister;
> - }
> + else
> + ret = rvin_parallel_init(vin);
>
> - ret = rvin_parallel_init(vin);
> - if (ret)
> - goto error_group_unregister;
> + if (ret) {
> + rvin_dma_unregister(vin);
> + return ret;
> + }
>
> pm_suspend_ignore_children(&pdev->dev, true);
> pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
>
> return 0;
> -error_group_unregister:
> - rvin_free_controls(vin);
> - rvin_csi2_cleanup(vin);
> -error_dma_unregister:
> - rvin_dma_unregister(vin);
> -
> - return ret;
This looks much much better and seems correct to me!
> }
>
> static int rcar_vin_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> @@ -1500,11 +1497,10 @@ static int rcar_vin_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> rvin_v4l2_unregister(vin);
>
> - rvin_parallel_cleanup(vin);
> -
> - rvin_csi2_cleanup(vin);
> -
> - rvin_free_controls(vin);
> + if (vin->info->use_mc)
> + rvin_csi2_cleanup(vin);
> + else
> + rvin_parallel_cleanup(vin);
In the case use_mc == true but a parallel input was registered as well
this won't clean up the parallel notifier it seems.
Does it hurt to clean it up unconditionally ?
Thanks
j
>
> rvin_dma_unregister(vin);
>
> --
> 2.31.1
>
