On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 07:48:09PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On 14/11/17 18:05, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 02:16:09PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote: > >> On 13/11/17 10:20, Johan Hovold wrote: > >>> Fix child-node lookup during probe, which ended up searching the whole > >>> device tree depth-first starting at the parent rather than just matching > >>> on its children. > >>> > >>> To make things worse, the parent mfd node was also prematurely freed. > >>> > >>> Note that the nodes returned from the two calls to of_parse_phandle() > >>> are also leaking, but fixing that is a bit more involved as pointers to > >>> node fields are being stored for later use. > >> > >> Is using a devm_kstrdup() to remember the full_name sufficient so get > >> each of the FIXMEs cleaned up as well? > > > > Yeah, that may be sufficient, but looking closer at this now, it seems > > the name pointers (su1_fb and su2_fb) are only used as booleans, and the > > fb_name pointer in struct as3711_bl_data is never used at all. > > > > So cleaning that up somehow (e.g. and maybe even dropping non-dt > > probing) would also work. > > > > But since this is a separate, and less critical issue, I think it needs > > to be done as a follow up to this one. > > To be honest it was adding the separate and less critical FIXMEs into > the patches that attracted my attention in the first place. ;-) Heh. Since I was touching those error paths, I at least wanted to record somehow there were further issues to be addressed. But feel free to drop the FIXMEs if you prefer. Thanks, Johan