Re: [PATCH v2] serial: qcom-geni: Fix port_ida handling for console and probe errors

[Praveen Talari]

Hi Aniket,

On 31-08-2026 21:29, Aniket RANDIVE wrote:
> On 8/31/2026 5:08 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 8/31/26 1:12 PM, Aniket Randive wrote:
> > > The console port uses a fixed line number and is not allocated from
> > > port_ida. However, qcom_geni_serial_remove() unconditionally frees the
> > > line number for all ports, including the console port.
> > >
> > > Skip ida_free() for console ports so that only IDs allocated from
> > > port_ida are returned.
> > >
> > > Also release allocated IDs from the common probe error path. Currently,
> > > IDs are freed only on the wake-IRQ failure path, causing leaks when
> > > probe fails after a successful allocation. Move the ida_free() call to
> > > the common error path and guard it for console ports.
> > >
> > > Route resources_init() failures through the common error path so the
> > > allocated line number is released correctly.
> > >
> > > Allocate the port structure before calling ida_alloc_range() in
> > > get_port_from_line(). This prevents IDs from being left allocated when
> > > memory allocation fails.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Aniket Randive <aniket.randive@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - Route port->dev_data->resources_init() failures through the common
> > > error path so allocated line numbers are not leaked.
> >
> > I asked GPT what it thinks again and this time it found that this
> > will cause a double calling of dev_pm_domain_detach_list(), which
> > will mess up the refcounting..
> >
> > I think the fix here is to drop the manual detaches since the common
> > helper uses a devres-managed version of attach.
>
> Thanks for catching this.
>
> Looking closer, this appears to be a separate issue from the port_ida 
> fixes in this patch. The dev_pm_domain_detach_list() problem already 
> exists in the current error path and is not introduced by this change.
>
> Since this involves power-domain cleanup rather than port_ida 
> handling, I'd prefer to address it in a separate follow-up patch to 
> keep this fix focused and easier to review.
>
> Is it OK to keep this patch limited to the port_ida fixes and handle 
> the power-domain cleanup separately?
That should be separate patch.

For this patch.

Reviewed-by: Praveen Talari <praveen.talari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,

Praveen Talari
> Thanks,
> Aniket
>
> > Konrad