Re: [PATCH v9 02/12] mtd: add driver for intel graphics non-volatile memory device

[Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>]

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 03:41:08PM +0530, Usyskin, Alexander wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 04:25:26PM +0300, Alexander Usyskin wrote:
> > > Add auxiliary driver for intel discrete graphics
> > > non-volatile memory device.

...

> > > +	for (n = 0, i = 0; i < INTEL_DG_NVM_REGIONS; i++) {
> > > +		if (!invm->regions[i].name)
> > > +			continue;
> > > +
> > > +		name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s.%s",
> > > +				 dev_name(&aux_dev->dev), invm-
> > >regions[i].name);
> > > +		if (!name)
> > > +			continue;
> > > +		nvm->regions[n].name = name;
> > > +		nvm->regions[n].id = i;
> > > +		n++;
> > > +	}
> > > +	nvm->nregions = n; /* in case where kasprintf fail */
> > 
> > Considering kasprintf failure, should we move forward if n == 0?
> Not sure if adding exit path here adds something positive to driver
> other than complexity.

With an error path already in place it shouldn't be too complex, but upto you.

...

> > > +static void intel_dg_mtd_remove(struct auxiliary_device *aux_dev)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct intel_dg_nvm *nvm = dev_get_drvdata(&aux_dev->dev);
> > > +
> > > +	if (!nvm)
> > > +		return;
> > 
> > Are we expecting this?
> > 
> > > +	dev_set_drvdata(&aux_dev->dev, NULL);
> > 
> > Do we need this?
> Is there guaranty by auxiliary device that after release nothing is called?

Any reports/link to read about such issues? My understanding is that driver
->remove() callbacks are bus lock held and there won't be an active instance
to be called after unbind.

Raag

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/