Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:51:48 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] usb: typec: intel_pmc_mux: Put fwnode in error case during ->probe() |
| |
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:49 PM Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 12:29:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:23 PM Heikki Krogerus > > <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:09:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > device_get_next_child_node() bumps a reference counting of a returned variable. > > > > ... > > > > > > err_remove_ports: > > > > + fwnode_handle_put(fwnode); > > > > > > Wouldn't it be more clear to do that in the condition that jumps to > > > this lable? > > > > In this case it doesn't matter. As a general pattern, no, because this > > will help to keep this in mind in complex error handling ladders. That > > said, I prefer my variant unless there is a strong opinion to move it > > into the conditional. > > Now it looks like you are releasing the mux device fwnode instead of a > port fwnode because everything else related to the ports is destroyed > in below loop. That's too confusing. > > Just handle it inside the condition, and the whole thing becomes > clear.
I see your point, okay, I will update in v2. Thanks for your review!
> > > > for (i = 0; i < pmc->num_ports; i++) { > > > > typec_switch_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_sw); > > > > typec_mux_unregister(pmc->port[i].typec_mux);
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |