Re: [PATCH v1 02/16] serial: max3100: Update uart_driver_registered on driver removal

[Hugo Villeneuve]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 20:31:50 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 01:18:27PM -0400, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
> > On Tue,  2 Apr 2024 18:38:08 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > >  	pr_debug("removing max3100 driver\n");
> > >  	uart_unregister_driver(&max3100_uart_driver);
> > > +	uart_driver_registered = 0;
> > 
> > At the beginning of the probe function, we have:
> > 
> > -----------------------
> > if (!uart_driver_registered) {
> > 		uart_driver_registered = 1;
> > 		retval = uart_register_driver(&max3100_uart_driver);
> > 		if (retval) {
> > 			printk(KERN_ERR "Couldn't register max3100 uart
> > driver\n"); mutex_unlock(&max3100s_lock);
> > 			return retval;
> > ...
> > -----------------------
> > 
> > If uart_register_driver() fails, uart_driver_registered would still be
> > true and would it prevent any other subsequent devices from being
> > properly registered? If yes, then maybe "uart_driver_registered = 1"
> > should be set only after a sucessfull call to uart_register_driver()?
> 
> Looks like yet another issue here (however I haven't hit it so far).
> I guess I can combine both fixes.  What do you think?

Hi Andy,
makes sense to me.

Hugo.


> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko