On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 08:49:39AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > On 2/2/24 03:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > The use of devm_*() functions works properly for when the device > > > structure itself is dynamic, but the hsmp driver is attempting to have a > > > local, static, struct device and then calls devm_() functions attaching > > > memory to the device that will never be freed. > > > > As I mentioned in my reply to v1, this is not correct. > > > > There is a global data struct, but that holds a struct device > > pointer, not the device struct. > > Ooops, I misread that: > static struct hsmp_plat_device plat_dev; > was not the actual device struct anymore. > > > The device itself is created with platform_device_alloc() + > > platform_device_add() from module-init and it is removed > > on module-exit by calling platform_device_unregister() > > Ok, much better. > > > So AFAICT this should keep using the devm_ variant to properly > > cleanup the sysfs attributes. > > This devm_ variant is odd, and should never have been created as the > sysfs core always cleans up the sysfs attributes when a device is > removed, there is no need for it (i.e. they do the same thing.) > > That's why I want to get rid of it, it's pointless :) > > > But what this really needs is to be converted to using > > amd_hsmp_driver.driver.dev_groups rather then manually > > calling devm_device_add_groups() I have already asked > > Suma Hegde (AMD) to take a look at this. > > The initial issue I saw with this is that these attributes are being > created dynamically, so using dev_groups can be a bit harder. The code > paths here are twisty and not obvious as it seems to want to support > devices of multiple types in the same codebase at the same time. It wants to provide metrics for each socket. The ACPI part was a recent addition (as you've now probably discovered) and works slighty differently because the discovered structure is different but it's not really that different otherwise. -- i. > But yes, using dev_groups is ideal, and if that happens, I'm happy. > It's just that there are now only 2 in-kernel users of > devm_device_add_groups() and I have a patch series to get rid of the > other one, and so this would be the last, hence my attention to this. > > Again, moving from devm_device_add_groups() to device_add_groups() is a > no-op from a functional standpoint, so this should be fine.
