lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] HID: trivial devm conversion for special hid drivers
From
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Benjamin Tissoires
> <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> wrote:
>> It is safe to use devres allocation within the hid subsystem:
>> - the devres release is called _after_ the call to .remove(), meaning
>> that no freed pointers will exists while removing the device
>> - if a .probe() fails, devres releases all the allocated ressources
>> before going to the next driver: there will not be ghost ressources
>> attached to a hid device if several drivers are probed.
>>
>> Given that, we can clean up a little some of the HID drivers. These ones
>> are trivial:
>> - there is only one kzalloc in the driver
>> - the .remove() callback contains only one kfree on top of hid_hw_stop()
>> - the error path in the probe is easy enough to be manually checked
>
> Thanks for the patch! I'm sorry I didn't find time to do what I was
> talking about last time.

no problems :)

>
> Few comments below.
>
>> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-a4tech.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-a4tech.c
>
>> @@ -104,29 +103,16 @@ static int a4_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
>> ret = hid_parse(hdev);
>> if (ret) {
>> hid_err(hdev, "parse failed\n");
>> - goto err_free;
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> ret = hid_hw_start(hdev, HID_CONNECT_DEFAULT);
>> - if (ret) {
>> + if (ret)
>> hid_err(hdev, "hw start failed\n");
>> - goto err_free;
>> - }
>>
>> - return 0;
>
> Isn't it better to leave explicit return 0? I think it would be fool
> proof in case someone wants to add anything in the middle.

yes, it might be. At least that's what I've done with the other drivers...

>
>> -err_free:
>> - kfree(a4);
>> return ret;
>> }
>
>> -static void a4_remove(struct hid_device *hdev)
>> -{
>> - struct a4tech_sc *a4 = hid_get_drvdata(hdev);
>> -
>> - hid_hw_stop(hdev);
>
> Is it safe to remove this call?
> This question is the same for all patched drivers.

It is. Once this call is removed, we use the in-core remove path,
which calls hid_hw_stop().

Thanks for the review.

Cheers,
Benjamin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-24 18:41    [W:0.060 / U:20.688 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site