Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] thermal/drivers/ti-soc-thermal: Use scope-based cleanup helper

[Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>]

Am Wed,  3 Sep 2025 21:17:32 +0800
schrieb Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>:

> Replace the manual cpufreq_cpu_put() with __free(put_cpufreq_policy)
> annotation for policy references. This reduces the risk of reference
> counting mistakes and aligns the code with the latest kernel style.
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c | 13 ++++---------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c b/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
> index 0cf0826b805a..37d06468913a 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@
>  
>  /* common data structures */
>  struct ti_thermal_data {
> -	struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>  	struct thermal_zone_device *ti_thermal;
>  	struct thermal_zone_device *pcb_tz;
>  	struct thermal_cooling_device *cool_dev;
> @@ -218,6 +217,7 @@ int ti_thermal_register_cpu_cooling(struct ti_bandgap *bgp, int id)
>  {
>  	struct ti_thermal_data *data;
>  	struct device_node *np = bgp->dev->of_node;
> +	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
>  
this looks as it changes the lifecycle from the device lifetime to just
this function...

>  	/*
>  	 * We are assuming here that if one deploys the zone
> @@ -234,19 +234,17 @@ int ti_thermal_register_cpu_cooling(struct ti_bandgap *bgp, int id)
>  	if (!data)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	data->policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
> -	if (!data->policy) {
> +	if (!policy) {
>  		pr_debug("%s: CPUFreq policy not found\n", __func__);
>  		return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Register cooling device */
> -	data->cool_dev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy);
> +	data->cool_dev = cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);

and it is passed on to something living beyond this function. I see no
_get(policy) in cpufreq_cooling_register().
Am I missing something?

Regards,
Andreas