Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Thu, 05 Nov 2020 08:50:59 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: fsl-sai: fix memory leak
In-Reply-To: <160453619129.3965362.7473462251338349415@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <20201101184818.2754-1-michael@walle.cc>
 <160453619129.3965362.7473462251338349415@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.9
Message-ID: <93b003ea4b80e0b6ec3eb63288e028eb@walle.cc>
Precedence: bulk

Am 2020-11-05 01:29, schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> Quoting Michael Walle (2020-11-01 10:48:18)
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-fsl-sai.c b/drivers/clk/clk-fsl-sai.c
>> index 0221180a4dd7..1e81c8d8a6fd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-fsl-sai.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-fsl-sai.c
>> @@ -68,9 +68,20 @@ static int fsl_sai_clk_probe(struct platform_device 
>> *pdev)
>>         if (IS_ERR(hw))
>>                 return PTR_ERR(hw);
>> 
>> +       platform_set_drvdata(pdev, hw);
>> +
>>         return devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider(dev, of_clk_hw_simple_get, 
>> hw);
>>  }
>> 
>> +static int fsl_sai_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +       struct clk_hw *hw = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> +
>> +       clk_hw_unregister_composite(hw);
> 
> Should we add a devm_clk_hw_register_composite() API and use it here?
> That way we don't need a remove function and devm can be used
> throughout.

Can do. But does adding a devm_ function qualify for the -stable branch?
Or should I expect to have exactly this patch as a backport there then?

-michael