Hi, On 4/9/21 11:30 AM, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > 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. Sorry about thetypo, I completely missed that while preparing the patch, fixed for v2. > 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? If you can send a patch to apply on top of my v2 of this patch then that would be great. > Actually, shouldn't this be marked as a fix? That is a good point I've added a fixes tag for v2. Regards, Hans
