Hi Umang,
Am 13.10.24 um 10:45 schrieb Umang Jain:
Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
except of the missing commit message, this patch looks good to me. I
understand the concerns about devm_kzalloc, but I think this doesn't
apply in this case.
Since this should be treated as RFC, is it already tested?
Regards
---
drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
index e780ed714a14..334fb7037766 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
@@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
return -ENOENT;
}
- mgmt = kzalloc(sizeof(*mgmt), GFP_KERNEL);
+ mgmt = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*mgmt), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!mgmt)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -1403,8 +1403,6 @@ static void vchiq_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
arm_state = vchiq_platform_get_arm_state(&mgmt->state);
kthread_stop(arm_state->ka_thread);
-
- kfree(mgmt);
}
static struct platform_driver vchiq_driver = {
