Hi Greg,
On Thu, 2025-02-13 at 11:11 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:37:54AM +0000, André Draszik wrote:
> > This changes the output of /proc/interrupts from the non-descriptive:
> > 1-0025
> > (or similar) to a more descriptive:
> > 1-0025-max33359
> >
> > This makes it easier to find the device, in particular if there are
> > multiple i2c devices, as one doesn't have to remember (or lookup) where
> > it is located.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: André Draszik <andre.draszik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_maxim_core.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_maxim_core.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_maxim_core.c
> > index fd1b80593367..46fc626589db 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_maxim_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_maxim_core.c
> > @@ -420,12 +420,14 @@ static irqreturn_t max_tcpci_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> > return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
> > }
> >
> > -static int max_tcpci_init_alert(struct max_tcpci_chip *chip, struct i2c_client *client)
> > +static int max_tcpci_init_alert(struct max_tcpci_chip *chip,
> > + struct i2c_client *client,
> > + const char *name)
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(chip->dev, client->irq, max_tcpci_isr, max_tcpci_irq,
> > - (IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT), dev_name(chip->dev),
> > + (IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT), name,
> > chip);
> >
> > if (ret < 0)
> > @@ -485,6 +487,7 @@ static int max_tcpci_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > int ret;
> > struct max_tcpci_chip *chip;
> > u8 power_status;
> > + const char *name;
> >
> > chip = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!chip)
> > @@ -531,7 +534,11 @@ static int max_tcpci_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> >
> > chip->port = tcpci_get_tcpm_port(chip->tcpci);
> >
> > - ret = max_tcpci_init_alert(chip, client);
> > + name = devm_kasprintf(&client->dev, GFP_KERNEL, "%s-%s",
> > + dev_name(&client->dev), client->name);
> > + if (!name)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> Please always test your code before sending it out. You just leaked a
> bunch of stuff here :(
Thanks for the review!
I can not see what leak you're referring to. Could you please clarify?
Thanks,
Andre'
