On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:09:04PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:36:11PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > usb_role_switch_find_by_fwnode() returns a reference to the role-switch > > which must be put by calling usb_role_switch_put(). > > > > usb_role_switch_put() calls module_put(sw->dev.parent->driver->owner), > > add a matching try_module_get() to usb_role_switch_find_by_fwnode(), > > making it behave the same as the other usb_role_switch functions > > which return a reference. > > > > This avoids a WARN_ON being hit at kernel/module.c:1158 due to the > > module-refcount going below 0. > > > > Took me a while to figure out what the subject line is supposed > to mean. > > s/Cakk/Call/ > > Otherwise > > Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > It might be useful though to explain the difference between > fwnode_usb_role_switch_get() and usb_role_switch_find_by_fwnode(), > and why two different functions are needed, both passing fwnode > as parameter and returning a pointer to usb_role_switch. Yes, the function names are confusing indeed. My proposal is to rename usb_role_switch_find_by_fwnode() to fwnode_to_usb_role_switch(). I can prepare a patch for that if you guys are OK with it, or Hans, would you prefer to send that together with this one? Actually, shouldn't this be marked as a fix? thanks, -- heikki
