Helo Mathieu,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:35:32AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 10:16:59PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c
> > index ef8415a7cd54..40a5fd8763fa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c
> > @@ -835,8 +835,9 @@ static int k3_dsp_rproc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > if (rproc->state == RPROC_ATTACHED) {
> > ret = rproc_detach(rproc);
> > if (ret) {
> > + /* Note this error path leaks resources */
>
> I'm not sure why this comment has been added...
The comment was added because there is a real problem and I didn't try
to fix it as doing that without the hardware is hard.
> > dev_err(dev, "failed to detach proc, ret = %d\n", ret);
>
> And why this isn't refactored in the next patch.
the next patch has:
- dev_err(dev, "failed to detach proc, ret = %d\n", ret);
+ dev_err(dev, "failed to detach proc (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(ret));
so this is refactored?!
> > - return ret;
> > + return 0;
>
> Appart from the above I'm good with this patchset.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
