Re: [PATCH v16 1/1] clk: npcm8xx: add clock controller

[Tomer Maimon]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:36, Christophe JAILLET
<christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Le 22/05/2023 à 14:56, Tomer Maimon a écrit :
> > Hi Christophe,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments
> >
>
> [...]
>
> >>> +static struct clk_hw *
> >>> +npcm8xx_clk_register_pll(struct device *dev, void __iomem *pllcon,
> >>> +                      const char *name, const struct clk_parent_data *parent,
> >>> +                      unsigned long flags)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     struct npcm8xx_clk_pll *pll;
> >>> +     struct clk_init_data init = {};
> >>> +     int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> +     pll = kzalloc(sizeof(*pll), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>
> >> Everything looks devm_()'ed in this driver, except this kzalloc.
> >> Except the one below, there is no kfree to free this memory, and no
> >> .remove() function.
> > Also  clk_hw_register_divider_parent_data doesn't use devm_
> > about free the pll, we use it, return at the end of the function.
> > about adding remove, we had a dissection about it in V4, since the
> > clock is a service driver it shouldn't be removed.
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-watchdog/patch/20220621131424.162355-7-tmaimon77@xxxxxxxxx/
>
> LoL.
> At least, I'm consistent :).
>
> Just to make it clear, what I mean about kfree() is not to add one here,
> but either:
>     - to use devm_kzalloc() here, to avoid a leak, should loading the
> driver fails      OR
>     - have some kfree() where needed (at least in the error handling
> path of the probe, if the remove function makes no point)
O.K. Thanks for your clarification.
>
> CJ

Best regards,

Tomer