Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: Release pin ranges when gpiochip_irqchip_add fails

[Pramod Gurav <pramod.gurav@smartplayin.com>]

On Thursday 28 August 2014 02:54 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Pramod Gurav
> <pramod.gurav@smartplayin.com> wrote:
>> This patches adds a call to gpiochip_remove_pin_ranges when
>> gpiochip_irqchip_add fails to release memory allocated for pin_ranges.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
>> @@ -845,6 +845,7 @@ static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl)
>>                                    IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
>>         if (ret) {
>>                 dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Failed to add irqchip to gpiochip\n");
>> +               gpiochip_remove_pin_ranges(chip);
>>                 return -ENOSYS;
>>         }
> 
> Good catch, I guess this was lost in the introduction of gpiochip_irqchip...
> 
> 
> Rather than just releasing the pin_ranges of the gpio_chip you should
> probably add a gpiochip_remove() both here and in the case of
> gpiochip_add_pin_range() failing.

Thanks for review. But if I see implementation of gpiochip_remove() it does:
	gpiochip_irqchip_remove(chip);
        gpiochip_remove_pin_ranges(chip);
        of_gpiochip_remove(chip);

In above failure case only gpiochip_add() and gpiochip_add_pin_range()
have been successful hence I thought that would cause any problem to add
gpiochip_remove(). If that is not a problem I think we can call
gpiochip_remove() in fail case of gpiochip_add_pin_range() as well.
Do I make sense?

> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>