Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191106231650.1580-1-jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com> <20191112084225.casuncbo7z54vu4g@netronome.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191112084225.casuncbo7z54vu4g@netronome.com>
From:   Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:51:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOCk7NpNgtTSus2KtBMe=jGLFyBumVfRVxKxtHoEDUEt2-6tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix qmi init error handling
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>
Cc:     kvalo@codeaurora.org, davem@davemloft.net,
        ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, MSM <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:42 AM Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:16:50PM -0800, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > When ath10k_qmi_init() fails, the error handling does not free the irq
> > resources, which causes an issue if we EPROBE_DEFER as we'll attempt to
> > (re-)register irqs which are already registered.
> >
> > Fixes: ba94c753ccb4 ("ath10k: add QMI message handshake for wcn3990 client")
> > Signed-off-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c
> > index fc15a0037f0e..f2a0b7aaad3b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c
> > @@ -1729,7 +1729,7 @@ static int ath10k_snoc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >       ret = ath10k_qmi_init(ar, msa_size);
> >       if (ret) {
> >               ath10k_warn(ar, "failed to register wlfw qmi client: %d\n", ret);
> > -             goto err_core_destroy;
> > +             goto err_free_irq;
> >       }
>
> From a casual examination of the code this seems like a step in the right
> direction. But does this error path also need to call ath10k_hw_power_off() ?

It probably should.  I don't see any fatal errors from the step being
skipped, although it might silence some regulator warnings about being
left on.  Unlikely to be observed by most folks as I was initing the
driver pretty early to debug some things.  Looks like Kalle already
picked up this patch though, so I guess your suggestion would need to
be a follow up.