| Message ID | 20240627131721.678727-2-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | pinctrl: use scope based of_node_put | expand |
Hello Peng, On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:17:19PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > Use scope based of_node_put() cleanup to simplify code. > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > --- > drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c | 43 +++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c b/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > index ef9758638501..f5e5a23d2226 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > @@ -822,53 +822,48 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ti_iodelay_of_match); > static int ti_iodelay_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > - struct device_node *np = of_node_get(dev->of_node); > + struct device_node *np __free(device_node) = of_node_get(dev->of_node); of_node_put? -------------------------------------------^ Best regards Uwe
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] pinctrl: ti: iodelay: Use scope based > of_node_put() cleanups > > Hello Peng, > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:17:19PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > Use scope based of_node_put() cleanup to simplify code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > --- > > drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c | 43 > > +++++++++---------------- > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > > b/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > > index ef9758638501..f5e5a23d2226 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > > @@ -822,53 +822,48 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, > ti_iodelay_of_match); > > static int ti_iodelay_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { > > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > - struct device_node *np = of_node_get(dev->of_node); > > + struct device_node *np __free(device_node) = > > +of_node_get(dev->of_node); > > of_node_put? -------------------------------------------^ You mean use of_node_put here? of_node_get should be used here. The __free will automatically do of_node_put when function return. Thanks, Peng. > > Best regards > Uwe
Hello, On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 01:32:15AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] pinctrl: ti: iodelay: Use scope based > > of_node_put() cleanups > > > > Hello Peng, > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:17:19PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > > > Use scope based of_node_put() cleanup to simplify code. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c | 43 > > > +++++++++---------------- > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > > > b/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > > > index ef9758638501..f5e5a23d2226 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c > > > @@ -822,53 +822,48 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, > > ti_iodelay_of_match); > > > static int ti_iodelay_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { > > > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > > - struct device_node *np = of_node_get(dev->of_node); > > > + struct device_node *np __free(device_node) = > > > +of_node_get(dev->of_node); > > > > of_node_put? -------------------------------------------^ > > You mean use of_node_put here? > of_node_get should be used here. The __free will automatically > do of_node_put when function return. Ah, I misinterpreted the syntax. I thought your code registers of_node_get() as cleanup handler. Sorry for the noise, Uwe
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c b/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c index ef9758638501..f5e5a23d2226 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/ti/pinctrl-ti-iodelay.c @@ -822,53 +822,48 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ti_iodelay_of_match); static int ti_iodelay_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; - struct device_node *np = of_node_get(dev->of_node); + struct device_node *np __free(device_node) = of_node_get(dev->of_node); struct resource *res; struct ti_iodelay_device *iod; - int ret = 0; + int ret; if (!np) { - ret = -EINVAL; dev_err(dev, "No OF node\n"); - goto exit_out; + return -EINVAL; } iod = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*iod), GFP_KERNEL); - if (!iod) { - ret = -ENOMEM; - goto exit_out; - } + if (!iod) + return -ENOMEM; + iod->dev = dev; iod->reg_data = device_get_match_data(dev); if (!iod->reg_data) { - ret = -EINVAL; dev_err(dev, "No DATA match\n"); - goto exit_out; + return -EINVAL; } /* So far We can assume there is only 1 bank of registers */ iod->reg_base = devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0, &res); - if (IS_ERR(iod->reg_base)) { - ret = PTR_ERR(iod->reg_base); - goto exit_out; - } + if (IS_ERR(iod->reg_base)) + return PTR_ERR(iod->reg_base); + iod->phys_base = res->start; iod->regmap = devm_regmap_init_mmio(dev, iod->reg_base, iod->reg_data->regmap_config); if (IS_ERR(iod->regmap)) { dev_err(dev, "Regmap MMIO init failed.\n"); - ret = PTR_ERR(iod->regmap); - goto exit_out; + return PTR_ERR(iod->regmap); } ret = ti_iodelay_pinconf_init_dev(iod); if (ret) - goto exit_out; + return ret; ret = ti_iodelay_alloc_pins(dev, iod, res->start); if (ret) - goto exit_out; + return ret; iod->desc.pctlops = &ti_iodelay_pinctrl_ops; /* no pinmux ops - we are pinconf */ @@ -879,20 +874,12 @@ static int ti_iodelay_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) ret = devm_pinctrl_register_and_init(dev, &iod->desc, iod, &iod->pctl); if (ret) { dev_err(dev, "Failed to register pinctrl\n"); - goto exit_out; + return ret; } platform_set_drvdata(pdev, iod); - ret = pinctrl_enable(iod->pctl); - if (ret) - goto exit_out; - - return 0; - -exit_out: - of_node_put(np); - return ret; + return pinctrl_enable(iod->pctl); } /**