Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.200.110.1.12\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] leds: el15203000: Fix devm vs. non-devm ordering
From:   Oleh Kravchenko <oleg@kaa.org.ua>
In-Reply-To: <1667983694-15040-3-git-send-email-wangyufen@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:39:14 +0200
Cc:     linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        pavel@ucw.cz
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Message-Id: <5D15416B-1866-4031-9958-7CD763C0BD6E@kaa.org.ua>
References: <1667983694-15040-1-git-send-email-wangyufen@huawei.com>
 <1667983694-15040-3-git-send-email-wangyufen@huawei.com>
To:     Wang Yufen <wangyufen@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello all!

> 9 лист. 2022 р. о 10:48 Wang Yufen <wangyufen@huawei.com> написав(ла):
> 
> When non-devm resources are allocated they mustn't be followed by devm
> allocations, otherwise it will break the tear down ordering and might
> lead to crashes or other bugs during ->remove() stage. Fix this by
> wrapping mutex_destroy() call with devm_add_action_or_reset().
> 
> Fixes: fc19967bcb8f ("leds: add LED driver for EL15203000 board")
> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@huawei.com>
> Cc: Oleh Kravchenko <oleg@kaa.org.ua>
> ---
> drivers/leds/leds-el15203000.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-el15203000.c b/drivers/leds/leds-el15203000.c
> index 7e7b617..9be934e 100644
> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-el15203000.c
> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-el15203000.c
> @@ -287,10 +287,16 @@ static int el15203000_probe_dt(struct el15203000 *priv)
> return ret;
> }
> 
> +static void el15203000_mutex_destroy(void *lock)
> +{
> + mutex_destroy(lock);
> +}
> +
> static int el15203000_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> {
> struct el15203000 *priv;
> size_t count;
> + int ret;
> 
> count = device_get_child_node_count(&spi->dev);
> if (!count) {
> @@ -312,15 +318,14 @@ static int el15203000_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> 
> spi_set_drvdata(spi, priv);
> 
> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&spi->dev, el15203000_mutex_destroy,
> +       &priv->lock);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> return el15203000_probe_dt(priv);
> }
> 
> -static void el15203000_remove(struct spi_device *spi)

Is remove() callback from struct spi_driver deprecated?

> -{
> - struct el15203000 *priv = spi_get_drvdata(spi);
> -
> - mutex_destroy(&priv->lock);
> -}
> 
> static const struct of_device_id el15203000_dt_ids[] = {
> { .compatible = "crane,el15203000", },
> @@ -331,7 +336,6 @@ static void el15203000_remove(struct spi_device *spi)
> 
> static struct spi_driver el15203000_driver = {
> .probe = el15203000_probe,
> - .remove = el15203000_remove,
> .driver = {
> .name = KBUILD_MODNAME,
> .of_match_table = el15203000_dt_ids,
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
>