Re: [PATCH 01/10] soc: qcom: aoss: Use __cleanup() for device_node pointers

[Kathiravan Thirumoorthy]

On 11/18/2025 6:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/11/2025 13:25, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 12:39:51PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 17/11/2025 12:35, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > > On 11/17/25 5:51 AM, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote:
> > > > > Make use of the __cleanup() attribute for device_node pointers to simplify
> > > > > resource management and remove explicit of_node_put() calls.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > This is obviously wrong and not helpful patch.
> > Describing why it is wrong would be helpful (or having a pointer to an
> > explanation). Bear in mind people who read email archives and find this
> > very brief note.
> I gave some rationale in other patches, but summarizing:
> 1. It is against cleanup.h - author did not bother to read it - which
> clearly asks for constructor with declaration.

Thanks for pointing this out. I understood that w/o NULL initialization 
we will be freeing some dangling pointers but looks like there are other 
cases also. I agree that I overlooked the details in cleanup.h.Apologies 
for the oversight and for taking up everyone’s time. Will take care of 
this going forward!

> This was discussed many
> times in the list, including many bugs and explicit checkpatch warning
> (on LKML) because people don't bother to read cleanup.h.
>
> 2. It makes simple get+put code complicated, not simpler.
>
> 3. It grows the scope of OF reference without benefits.
>
> 4. This driver was already reviewed and simplified so author should go
> back and think why this was left alone (would save a lot of trouble).
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof