Re: [PATCH] isa: switch to dynamic root device

[William Breathitt Gray]

On Sun, May 03, 2026 at 05:50:17PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Sun May 3, 2026 at 7:08 AM CEST, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > Would you resend with a Fixes tag
> 
> Devices should generally be allocated dynamically for various reasons (e.g. I
> recently had a case where adding a dynamic lock class key to struct device for
> debugging purposes caused warnings for all the static devices).
> 
> While it clearly should be improved, I don't think this causes a bug in the ISA
> code -- there is no "real" leak as the device is static anyway and there's no
> spurious WARN() as release() is never hit, since ISA is always built-in.
> 
> I'd assume this is why Johan did not add it in the first place.
> 
> That said, if you mean to add a Fixes: tag anyway to indicate the technically
> wrong usage pattern of struct device, that seems reasonable to me.

Okay that makes sense, this is improvement of the code rather than a
true bug fix, so we don't need a Fixes tag.

Johan, I do have another request. Would you refactor the changes in
isa_bus_init() to avoid the nested blocks? For example:

	error = bus_register(&isa_bus_type);
	if (error)
		return error;

	isa_bus = root_device_register("isa");
	if (IS_ERR(isa_bus)) {
		bus_unregister(&isa_bus_type);
		return PTR_ERR(isa_bus);
	}

	return 0;

I believe that makes the logic easier to understand when reading the
code here.

William Breathitt Gray