Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:01:42 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] phy: qcom-qmp: fix reset-controller leak on probe
 errors
Message-ID: <YmjcRleHMaWKUcni@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20220422130941.2044-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <20220422130941.2044-3-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <59b135206b456fd8f8df30a4e474e385a922bf77.camel@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <59b135206b456fd8f8df30a4e474e385a922bf77.camel@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:45:29AM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Johan,
> 
> On Fr, 2022-04-22 at 15:09 +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Make sure to release the lane reset controller in case of a late probe
> > error (e.g. probe deferral).
> 
> Right. grepping for "of_reset_control_get", there seem to be are a few
> other drivers that might share the same issue...

Yeah, I'm sure there are more of these.
 
> > Note that due to the reset controller being defined in devicetree in
> > (questionable) "lane" child nodes, devm_reset_control_get_exclusive()
> > cannot be used (and we shouldn't add devres helpers for the legacy reset
> > controller API).
> 
> Do you mean of_reset_control_get()? Maybe you could switch to
> of_reset_control_get_exclusive() while at it?

Right, I was referring to of_reset_control_get() but obviously
of_reset_control_get_exclusive() could still get a devres version so
that sentence in parenthesis doesn't make much sense.

I must have mistakingly imagined that the latter also retrieved the
struct device_node from a struct device like the current devres helpers
do.

> That one might warrant a devres helper if other drivers were to adopt
> the same pattern.

Right.

> The patch itself looks fine to me,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>

Thanks for reviewing. I'll send a v2 with an updated commit message and
switch to the new API in a new follow-on patch.

Johan