Re: [PATCH] mfd: intel-lpss: fix iDMA device leak on probe failure

[Mika Westerberg]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 08:00:29PM +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> Thanks Andy and Mika.
> 
> On Tue, 22 Sept 2026 at 20:33, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 03:29:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 03:59:32PM +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 21 Sept 2026 at 19:05, Mika Westerberg
> > > > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 06:40:58PM +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I think this could use devm_mfd_add_devices() instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The issue was identified by a static analysis tool I developed and
> > > > > > confirmed by manual review.
> > >
> > > > Do you mean converting both MFD registrations to devm_mfd_add_devices()
> > > > and dropping the explicit mfd_remove_devices() from the remove path, like
> > > > this?
> > >
> > > Won't work properly. The rule of thumb, it should be no 'goto' after devm_*() call.
> >
> > hmm, isn't the unwind done in driver core and has nothing to do with goto?
> > Maybe things have changed since I last time looked? ;-)
> 
> devm_mfd_add_devices() would remove the children when the parent
> device's devres is released after probe returns an error. However, the
> current error path tears down the debugfs, LTR, clock, and IDA state
> before returning, while intel_lpss_remove() removes the MFD children
> before those resources.
> 
> Given that ordering, would keeping mfd_add_devices() and adding
> mfd_remove_devices() at err_remove_ltr, as in the original patch, be
> preferable here?

Yes I agree,

Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>