Re: [GIT PULL] pin control changes for v6.13

[Sasha Levin]

Hi Linus,

I've just hit the issue you've described in this PR:

On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 05:23:26PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> - The second issue is more sneaky: a recent fixup patch to one
>   of the rc:s (I think -rc4) fixed some error path bugs in
>   the AW9523 driver, then a patch to the regular devel is
>   improving the use of devres so the fixed errorpath fixes
>   things broken.
>
> I have been applying the following fixup patch for -next to work:

And realized that that proposed fixup:

> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c
> index ebd590a3cec6..90059b0d20e5 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c
> @@ -983,11 +983,8 @@ static int aw9523_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>        lockdep_set_subclass(&awi->i2c_lock,
> i2c_adapter_depth(client->adapter));
>
>        pdesc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pdesc), GFP_KERNEL);
> -       if (!pdesc) {
> -               ret = -ENOMEM;
> -               goto err_disable_vregs;
> -       }
> -
> +       if (!pdesc)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
>        ret = aw9523_hw_init(awi);
>        if (ret)
>                return ret;
>
> This can be folded in as an "evil merge" or applied separately on
> top, your pick.

Is effectively a revert of one of the commits that are part of this PR:

>      pinctrl: aw9523: add missing mutex_destroy

Would it make more sense to just re-do this PR without the offending
commit? I understand that this is a fairly small fixup, but I'm
concerned that this will just create confusion later on...

--
Thanks,
Sasha