From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Francois Moine Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ASoc: kirkwood: simplify probe error Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 18:52:55 +0200 Message-ID: <20130803185255.1b1932c4@armhf> References: <20130731081739.76aae84c@armhf> <20130803124652.GY23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130803124652.GY23006@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , Rob Herring , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 13:46:52 +0100 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:17:39AM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > > The function kirkwood_i2s_dev_remove() may be used when probe fails= =2E >=20 > Looking at this deeper, I'm not happy with this. [snip] > What this means is that if snd_soc_register_component() fails, we end > up calling snd_soc_unregister_component(). This may be fine with the > way snd_soc_unregister_component() is currently implemented, but you'= re > making the assumption that it's fine to call snd_soc_unregister_compo= nent() > for a device which hasn't been registered. Technically, this is a > layering violation, which makes this change fragile if the behaviour > of snd_soc_unregister_component() changes in the future. >=20 > For the sake of two calls in the error path, I don't think the benefi= ts > of this patch outweigh the risk. You are right, but if snd_soc_unregister_component() could be officially used safely with no previous call to snd_soc_register_component(), this would simplify error handling in other drivers too... --=20 Ken ar c'henta=C3=B1 | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/