On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 12:56 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 12:42:49PM +0000, Lucas Tanure wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Lucas Tanure <tanure@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> I can't take patches without any changelog text, sorry.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/misc/apple-mfi-fastcharge.c | 17 +++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/apple-mfi-fastcharge.c b/drivers/usb/misc/apple-mfi-fastcharge.c
> > index 9de0171b5177..de86e389a008 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/apple-mfi-fastcharge.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/apple-mfi-fastcharge.c
> > @@ -178,16 +178,13 @@ static int mfi_fc_probe(struct usb_device *udev)
> > {
> > struct power_supply_config battery_cfg = {};
> > struct mfi_device *mfi = NULL;
> > - int err;
> >
> > if (!mfi_fc_match(udev))
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > - mfi = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mfi_device), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!mfi) {
> > - err = -ENOMEM;
> > - goto error;
> > - }
> > + mfi = devm_kzalloc(&udev->dev, sizeof(*mfi), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!mfi)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > battery_cfg.drv_data = mfi;
> >
> > @@ -197,8 +194,7 @@ static int mfi_fc_probe(struct usb_device *udev)
> > &battery_cfg);
> > if (IS_ERR(mfi->battery)) {
> > dev_err(&udev->dev, "Can't register battery\n");
> > - err = PTR_ERR(mfi->battery);
> > - goto error;
> > + return PTR_ERR(mfi->battery);
> > }
> >
> > mfi->udev = usb_get_dev(udev);
> > @@ -206,9 +202,6 @@ static int mfi_fc_probe(struct usb_device *udev)
> >
> > return 0;
> >
> > -error:
> > - kfree(mfi);
> > - return err;
> > }
> >
> > static void mfi_fc_disconnect(struct usb_device *udev)
> > @@ -220,7 +213,7 @@ static void mfi_fc_disconnect(struct usb_device *udev)
> > power_supply_unregister(mfi->battery);
> > dev_set_drvdata(&udev->dev, NULL);
> > usb_put_dev(mfi->udev);
> > - kfree(mfi);
> > + devm_kfree(&udev->dev, mfi);
>
> Are you sure about this?
I think so, as the probe will allocate again that struct, the
disconnect should free the previous one.
>
> And what's wrong with the existing code? Using the devm_*() variants
> seems like a "cleanup", but it's not always the case.
I don't know what's wrong, but I will figure out.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Thanks
Lucas
