Hello Uwe,
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 10:31:36AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 09:06:46AM +0000, Sean Young wrote:
> > + pc->rate = clk_get_rate(pc->clk);
> > + if (!pc->rate) {
> > + clk_rate_exclusive_put(pc->clk);
> > + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL,
> > + "failed to get clock rate\n");
> > + }
> > +
> > pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> > pc->chip.ops = &bcm2835_pwm_ops;
> > + pc->chip.atomic = true;
> > pc->chip.npwm = 2;
> >
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
> >
> > ret = devm_pwmchip_add(&pdev->dev, &pc->chip);
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + clk_rate_exclusive_put(pc->clk);
> > return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret,
> > "failed to add pwmchip\n");
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int bcm2835_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct bcm2835_pwm *pc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > +
> > + clk_rate_exclusive_put(pc->clk);
>
> The ugly thing here is that now clk_rate_exclusive_put() happens before
> pwmchip_remove().
Mixing devm with non-devm does lead to problems like this.
> Maybe register a devm cleanup which also gets rid of
> the two clk_rate_exclusive_put() in probe's error path?
That's good idea, I've done that in v10.
>
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -197,6 +216,7 @@ static struct platform_driver bcm2835_pwm_driver = {
> > .pm = pm_ptr(&bcm2835_pwm_pm_ops),
> > },
> > .probe = bcm2835_pwm_probe,
> > + .remove = bcm2835_pwm_remove,
>
> Please use .remove_new
No longer needed in v10.
Sean
