lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] pwm: omap-dmtimer: put_device() after of_find_device_by_node()
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 02:41:58PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > This was found by coccicheck:
> >
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c:304:2-8: ERROR: missing put_device;
> > call of_find_device_by_node on line 255, but without a corresponding
> > object release within this function.
>
> How do you think about to add a wording according to “imperative mood”
> for your change description?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=31f4f5b495a62c9a8b15b1c3581acd5efeb9af8c#n151

Are you a bot?

> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c
> …
> > @@ -352,7 +352,14 @@ static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> …
> > pdata->free(dm_timer);
> > -put:
> > +err_request_timer:
> > +
> > +err_timer_property:
> > +err_platdata:
> > +
> > + put_device(&timer_pdev->dev);
>
> Would the use of the label “put_device” be more appropriate?
>
>
> > +err_find_timer_pdev:
> > +
> > of_node_put(timer);
> …
>
> Would the use of the label “put_node” be better here?
>
>
> > @@ -372,6 +379,8 @@ static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> > omap->pdata->free(omap->dm_timer);
> >
> > + put_device(&omap->dm_timer_pdev->dev);
> > +
> > mutex_destroy(&omap->mutex);
> >
> > return 0;
>
> I suggest to omit a few blank lines.

And I like it the way it is.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-11 21:10    [W:0.114 / U:2.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site