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
References: <20210606200911.32076-1-andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
 <YL3lomK79iIuE13f@kuha.fi.intel.com> <CAHp75Ve5Kq4Wn0f2AxcyK3gP8Qs1s5fWvyVDjAyToqMpA5Humg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YL3rkZd/2giR+Qok@kuha.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <YL3rkZd/2giR+Qok@kuha.fi.intel.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:51:48 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdFih-TMWXWXr9vnDJkBDBb7K7yv3rfUP6T0HF2SAMGHw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] usb: typec: intel_pmc_mux: Put fwnode in error
 case during ->probe()
To:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        USB <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:49 PM Heikki Krogerus
<heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 12:29:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:23 PM Heikki Krogerus
> > <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:09:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > device_get_next_child_node() bumps a reference counting of a returned variable.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > >  err_remove_ports:
> > > > +     fwnode_handle_put(fwnode);
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be more clear to do that in the condition that jumps to
> > > this lable?
> >
> > In this case it doesn't matter. As a general pattern, no, because this
> > will help to keep this in mind in complex error handling ladders. That
> > said, I prefer my variant unless there is a strong opinion to move it
> > into the conditional.
>
> Now it looks like you are releasing the mux device fwnode instead of a
> port fwnode because everything else related to the ports is destroyed
> in below loop. That's too confusing.
>
> Just handle it inside the condition, and the whole thing becomes
> clear.

I see your point, okay, I will update in v2.
Thanks for your review!

> > > >       for (i = 0; i < pmc->num_ports; i++) {
> > > >               typec_switch_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_sw);
> > > >               typec_mux_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_mux);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko