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: <20211012134027.684712-1-kernel@esmil.dk> <20211012134027.684712-13-kernel@esmil.dk>
 <CAHp75Vep+i+iyJi0LAOKuer-cUZoUoB_ZrWKcmT=EB_4hOgFGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANBLGcxHD2vy0+tXYo5Pkqri9mV7aD9jikvs3ygBJRxF4ApLMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75Vc65deoHbks-aPmnjEJzm3GdqFMfBCUqw4vVLVr=71Ncg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANBLGcxriKLZ+CKUsj5sviW8FdHnWTF2koROwmAb=G2tbmE6vQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VccSDLVbs1sF_-1zghWyLKtKKV1qtxOxZZ-cS0e6S-sBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp75VcgFRGpca-pSU9T5Oo1fT4aWQJd5EQfyZscGYx0mDMJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VcgFRGpca-pSU9T5Oo1fT4aWQJd5EQfyZscGYx0mDMJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:02:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CANBLGcxHLQZygX9CHsXK4aYS9m4VE5OnLNROOmvP1ps5UP-xAw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 12/16] pinctrl: starfive: Add pinctrl driver for
 StarFive SoCs
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>,
        Sagar Kadam <sagar.kadam@sifive.com>,
        Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
        Matteo Croce <mcroce@microsoft.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Huan Feng <huan.feng@starfivetech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 18:29, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:23 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:56 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:48, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:35 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 19:03, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:43 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > > +       ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> > > > > > > +       if (ret) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +               reset_control_deassert(rst);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Use devm_add_action_or_reset().
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how that is better.
> > > >
> > > > Pity. The rule of thumb is to either try to use devm_*() everywhere in
> > > > the probe, or don't use it at all. Above is the more-or-less standard
> > > > pattern where devn_add_action_or_reset() is being used in the entire
> > > > kernel.
> > > >
> > > > > Then I'd first need to call that and
> > > > > check for errors, but just on the line below enabling the clock the
> > > > > reset line is deasserted anyway, so then the action isn't needed any
> > > > > longer. So that 3 lines of code for devm_add_action_or_reset +
> > > > > lingering unneeded action or code to remove it again vs. just the line
> > > > > above.
> > > >
> > > > Then don't use devm_*() at all. What's the point?
> > >
> > > I'm confused. So you wan't an unneeded action to linger because the
> > > probe function temporarily asserts reset for 3 lines of code?
> >
> > I;m talking about clk_prepare_enable().
>
> Having a second look I found even problematic error paths because of
> mixing devm_*() with non-devm_*() calls, which only assures me that
> your ->probe() error path is broken and should be revisited.

So do you want to expand on that now or should I send v2 first?