Re: [PATCH v2] serial: qcom-geni: Fix port_ida handling for console and probe errors

[Praveen Talari <praveen.talari@oss.qualcomm.com>]

Hi Aniket,

On 31-08-2026 21:29, Aniket RANDIVE wrote:
>
>
> On 8/31/2026 5:08 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 8/31/26 1:12 PM, Aniket Randive wrote:
>>> The console port uses a fixed line number and is not allocated from
>>> port_ida. However, qcom_geni_serial_remove() unconditionally frees the
>>> line number for all ports, including the console port.
>>>
>>> Skip ida_free() for console ports so that only IDs allocated from
>>> port_ida are returned.
>>>
>>> Also release allocated IDs from the common probe error path. Currently,
>>> IDs are freed only on the wake-IRQ failure path, causing leaks when
>>> probe fails after a successful allocation. Move the ida_free() call to
>>> the common error path and guard it for console ports.
>>>
>>> Route resources_init() failures through the common error path so the
>>> allocated line number is released correctly.
>>>
>>> Allocate the port structure before calling ida_alloc_range() in
>>> get_port_from_line(). This prevents IDs from being left allocated when
>>> memory allocation fails.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aniket Randive <aniket.randive@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Route port->dev_data->resources_init() failures through the common
>>> error path so allocated line numbers are not leaked.
>>
>> I asked GPT what it thinks again and this time it found that this
>> will cause a double calling of dev_pm_domain_detach_list(), which
>> will mess up the refcounting..
>>
>> I think the fix here is to drop the manual detaches since the common
>> helper uses a devres-managed version of attach.
>>
>
> Thanks for catching this.
>
> Looking closer, this appears to be a separate issue from the port_ida 
> fixes in this patch. The dev_pm_domain_detach_list() problem already 
> exists in the current error path and is not introduced by this change.
>
> Since this involves power-domain cleanup rather than port_ida 
> handling, I'd prefer to address it in a separate follow-up patch to 
> keep this fix focused and easier to review.
>
> Is it OK to keep this patch limited to the port_ida fixes and handle 
> the power-domain cleanup separately?
That should be separate patch.

For this patch.

Reviewed-by: Praveen Talari <praveen.talari@oss.qualcomm.com>

Thanks,

Praveen Talari
>
> Thanks,
> Aniket
>
>> Konrad
>
>