On 2024/9/12 6:53, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 6:19 AM Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Use devm_pm_runtime_enable(), devm_request_irq() and >> devm_spi_register_controller() to simplify code. >> >> And also register a callback spi_geni_release_dma_chan() with >> devm_add_action_or_reset(), to release dma channel in both error >> and device detach path, which can make sure the release sequence is >> consistent with the original one. >> >> 1. Unregister spi controller. >> 2. Free the IRQ. >> 3. Free DMA chans >> 4. Disable runtime PM. >> >> So the remove function can also be removed. >> >> Suggested-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> v4: >> - Correct the "data" of devm_add_action_or_reset(). >> v3: >> - Land the rest of the cleanups afterwards. >> --- >> drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c | 37 +++++++++++++------------------------ >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c b/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c >> index 6f4057330444..5cb002d7d4a6 100644 >> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c >> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c >> @@ -632,8 +632,10 @@ static int spi_geni_grab_gpi_chan(struct spi_geni_master *mas) >> return ret; >> } >> >> -static void spi_geni_release_dma_chan(struct spi_geni_master *mas) >> +static void spi_geni_release_dma_chan(void *data) >> { >> + struct spi_geni_master *mas = data; >> + >> if (mas->rx) { >> dma_release_channel(mas->rx); >> mas->rx = NULL; >> @@ -1132,6 +1134,12 @@ static int spi_geni_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, spi_geni_release_dma_chan, mas); >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(dev, "Unable to add action.\n"); >> + return ret; >> + } > > Use dev_err_probe() to simplify. > > ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, spi_geni_release_dma_chan, mas); > if (ret) > return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Unable to add action.\n"); It seems that if it only return -ENOMEM or 0, using dev_err_probe() has not not much value for many community maintainers. > > > Personally I'd also rather that you do the devm_add_action_or_reset() > call straight in spi_geni_grab_gpi_chan(). That makes it much more Yes, it will be more clear. > obvious what's happening. You can still use dev_err_probe() in there > since it's called (indirectly) from probe. In that case you'd probably > replace the "return 0;" in that function with just "return > dev_err_probe(...)". > > >> @@ -1146,33 +1154,15 @@ static int spi_geni_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> if (mas->cur_xfer_mode == GENI_GPI_DMA) >> spi->flags = SPI_CONTROLLER_MUST_TX; >> >> - ret = request_irq(mas->irq, geni_spi_isr, 0, dev_name(dev), spi); >> + ret = devm_request_irq(dev, mas->irq, geni_spi_isr, 0, dev_name(dev), spi); >> if (ret) >> - goto spi_geni_release_dma; >> + return ret; >> >> - ret = spi_register_controller(spi); >> + ret = devm_spi_register_controller(dev, spi); >> if (ret) >> - goto spi_geni_probe_free_irq; >> + return ret; >> >> return 0; > > You no longer need the "if" statement or even to assign to "ret". Just: > > return devm_spi_register_controller(dev, spi); Right! > > > Those are just nits, though. I'd be OK with: > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > ...since Mark has already landed the first two patches, your v5 would > just contain this one patch. > > -Doug