Re: [PATCHv2 net] net: ibm: emac: mal: add dcr_unmap to _remove

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 01:23:02 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hello Rosen,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 04:30:50PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> > It's done in probe so it should be done here.
> > 
> > Fixes: 1d3bb996 ("Device tree aware EMAC driver")
> > Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  v2: Rebase and add proper fixes line.
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
> > index a93423035325..c634534710d9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c
> > @@ -742,6 +742,8 @@ static void mal_remove(struct platform_device *ofdev)
> >  
> >  	free_netdev(mal->dummy_dev);
> >  
> > +	dcr_unmap(mal->dcr_host, 0x100);
> > +
> >  	dma_free_coherent(&ofdev->dev,
> >  			  sizeof(struct mal_descriptor) *
> >  			  (NUM_TX_BUFF * mal->num_tx_chans +  
> 
> The fix per see seems correct, but, there are a few things you might
> want to improve:
> 
> 1) Fixes: format
> Your "Fixes:" line does not follow the expected format, as detected by
> checkpatch. you might want something as:
> 
> 	Fixes: 1d3bb996481e ("Device tree aware EMAC driver")
> 
> 
> 2) The description can be improved. For instance, you say it is done in
> probe but not in remove. Why should it be done in remove instead of
> removed from probe()? That would help me to review it better, instead of
> going into the code and figure it out.
> 
> Once you have fixed it, feel free to add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>

Good points, I'll fix when applying - I want to make sure this gets
into tomorrow's PR 'cause Rosen has patches for net-next depending 
on it.