Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: Release pin ranges when gpiochip_irqchip_add fails

From: Pramod Gurav
Date: Thu Aug 28 2014 - 03:10:17 EST


On Thursday 28 August 2014 02:54 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Pramod Gurav
> <pramod.gurav@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This patches adds a call to gpiochip_remove_pin_ranges when
>> gpiochip_irqchip_add fails to release memory allocated for pin_ranges.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
>> @@ -845,6 +845,7 @@ static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl)
>> IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
>> if (ret) {
>> dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Failed to add irqchip to gpiochip\n");
>> + gpiochip_remove_pin_ranges(chip);
>> return -ENOSYS;
>> }
>
> Good catch, I guess this was lost in the introduction of gpiochip_irqchip...
>
>
> Rather than just releasing the pin_ranges of the gpio_chip you should
> probably add a gpiochip_remove() both here and in the case of
> gpiochip_add_pin_range() failing.

Thanks for review. But if I see implementation of gpiochip_remove() it does:
gpiochip_irqchip_remove(chip);
gpiochip_remove_pin_ranges(chip);
of_gpiochip_remove(chip);

In above failure case only gpiochip_add() and gpiochip_add_pin_range()
have been successful hence I thought that would cause any problem to add
gpiochip_remove(). If that is not a problem I think we can call
gpiochip_remove() in fail case of gpiochip_add_pin_range() as well.
Do I make sense?

>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/