Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: smsc: add missed clk_disable_unprepare in smsc_phy_probe() | From | Florian Fainelli <> | Date | Sat, 14 Nov 2020 11:45:35 -0800 |
| |
On 11/14/2020 11:26 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:23:59 +0800 Zhang Changzhong wrote: >> Add the missing clk_disable_unprepare() before return from >> smsc_phy_probe() in the error handling case. >> >> Fixes: bedd8d78aba3 ("net: phy: smsc: LAN8710/20: add phy refclk in support") >> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com> >> Signed-off-by: Zhang Changzhong <zhangchangzhong@huawei.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/phy/smsc.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c b/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c >> index ec97669..0fc39ac 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c >> @@ -291,8 +291,10 @@ static int smsc_phy_probe(struct phy_device *phydev) >> return ret; >> >> ret = clk_set_rate(priv->refclk, 50 * 1000 * 1000); >> - if (ret) >> + if (ret) { >> + clk_disable_unprepare(priv->refclk); >> return ret; >> + } >> >> return 0; >> } > > Applied, thanks! > > The code right above looks highly questionable as well: > > priv->refclk = clk_get_optional(dev, NULL); > if (IS_ERR(priv->refclk)) > dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(priv->refclk), "Failed to request clock\n"); > > ret = clk_prepare_enable(priv->refclk); > if (ret) > return ret; > > I don't think clk_prepare_enable() will be too happy to see an error > pointer. This should probably be: > > priv->refclk = clk_get_optional(dev, NULL); > if (IS_ERR(priv->refclk)) > return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(priv->refclk), > "Failed to request clock\n");
Right, especially if EPROBE_DEFER must be returned because the clock provider is not ready yet, we should have a chance to do that. -- Florian
| |