Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-40442-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:38:26 -0800
From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
To: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com>
Cc: mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tarak Reddy <tarak.reddy@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] remoteproc: enhance rproc_put() for clusters
Message-ID: <4xqmpxq4uqqxmgsf5lzxo3qjxmoeu6cpb4iqvtxefyiqlt3pzk@g76y2r4uxkiw>
References: <20240103221124.3063683-1-tanmay.shah@amd.com>
 <20240103221124.3063683-3-tanmay.shah@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240103221124.3063683-3-tanmay.shah@amd.com>

On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 02:11:25PM -0800, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> This patch enhances rproc_put() to support remoteproc clusters
> with multiple child nodes as in rproc_get_by_phandle().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tarak Reddy <tarak.reddy@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com>

As described in the first patch, this documents that Tarak first
certified the origin of this patch, then you certify the origin as you
handle the patch.

But according to From: you're the author, so how could Tarak have
certified the origin before you authored the patch?

Either correct the author, or add Co-developed-by, if that's what
happened.

> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 0b3b34085e2f..f276956f2c5c 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -2554,7 +2554,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_free);
>   */
>  void rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc)
>  {
> -	module_put(rproc->dev.parent->driver->owner);
> +	if (rproc->dev.parent->driver)
> +		module_put(rproc->dev.parent->driver->owner);
> +	else
> +		module_put(rproc->dev.parent->parent->driver->owner);
> +

This does however highlight a bug that was introduced by patch 1, please
avoid this by squashing the two patches together (and use
Co-developed-by as needed).

Regards,
Bjorn

>  	put_device(&rproc->dev);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_put);
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>