Re: [PATCH 01/21] pinctrl: ti: iodelay: Use scope based of_node_put() cleanups

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:28:42AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/21] pinctrl: ti: iodelay: Use scope based of_node_put()
> > cleanups
> > 
> > On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 08:55:59PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > > @@ -879,16 +874,12 @@ static int ti_iodelay_probe(struct
> > platform_device *pdev)
> > >  	ret = pinctrl_register_and_init(&iod->desc, dev, iod, &iod->pctl);
> > >  	if (ret) {
> > >  		dev_err(dev, "Failed to register pinctrl\n");
> > > -		goto exit_out;
> > > +		return ret;
> > >  	}
> > >
> > >  	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, iod);
> > >
> > >  	return pinctrl_enable(iod->pctl);
> > > -
> > > -exit_out:
> > > -	of_node_put(np);
> > > -	return ret;
> > >  }
> > 
> > This will call of_node_put() on the success path so it's a behavior change.  The
> > original code is buggy, it's supposed to call of_node_put() on the success path
> > here or in ti_iodelay_remove().
> > 
> > If it's supposed to call of_node_put() here, then fine, this is bugfix but if it's
> > supposed to call it in ti_iodelay_remove() then we need to save the pointer
> > somewhere using no_free_ptr().  Probably saving ->np is the safest choice?
> > 
> > The original code is already a little bit buggy because it doesn't check for
> > pinctrl_enable() errors and cleanup.
> 
> It was introduced by 
> commit 6118714275f0a313ecc296a87ed1af32d9691bed (tag: pinctrl-v4.11-4)
> Author: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Thu Mar 30 09:16:39 2017 -0700
> 
>     pinctrl: core: Fix pinctrl_register_and_init() with pinctrl_enable()
> 
> of_node_put is expected in probe, not in remove.
> 

Ah, right.  You'll add that for the Fixes tag obviously...

regards,
dan carpenter