On Thu, 12 Oct 2023, Baolin Wang wrote:
On 10/12/2023 11:47 AM, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
Move the mutex_init() to avoid redundant mutex_destroy() calls after
that for each time the probe fails.
Signed-off-by: Chunyan Zhang <chunyan.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Rebased onto linux-next.
V2:
- Move the mutex_init() to the end of .probe() instead of adding
mutex_destroy() according to Lee's comments.
---
drivers/leds/leds-sc27xx-bltc.c | 9 ++++-----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-sc27xx-bltc.c b/drivers/leds/leds-sc27xx-bltc.c
index af1f00a2f328..ef57e57ecf07 100644
--- a/drivers/leds/leds-sc27xx-bltc.c
+++ b/drivers/leds/leds-sc27xx-bltc.c
@@ -296,7 +296,6 @@ static int sc27xx_led_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
return -ENOMEM;
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, priv);
- mutex_init(&priv->lock);
priv->base = base;
priv->regmap = dev_get_regmap(dev->parent, NULL);
if (!priv->regmap) {
@@ -309,13 +308,11 @@ static int sc27xx_led_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
err = of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", ®);
if (err) {
of_node_put(child);
- mutex_destroy(&priv->lock);
return err;
}
if (reg >= SC27XX_LEDS_MAX || priv->leds[reg].active) {
of_node_put(child);
- mutex_destroy(&priv->lock);
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -325,9 +322,11 @@ static int sc27xx_led_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
err = sc27xx_led_register(dev, priv);
if (err)
- mutex_destroy(&priv->lock);
+ return err;
- return err;
+ mutex_init(&priv->lock);
I think it is better to prepare all the required resources before
registering the led device, what I mean is moving mutex_init() before
calling sc27xx_led_register().
Is the mutex used before this point?
If not, I don't see any reason to initialise it sooner.