Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] media: mediatek: amend vpu_get_plat_device() documentation

[Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2513 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 10:58:41AM -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> Le mercredi 10 décembre 2025 à 12:21 +0900, Johan Hovold a écrit :
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 03:43:30PM -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> > > Le mardi 28 octobre 2025 à 11:04 +0100, Johan Hovold a écrit :

> > > > Add a comment to the vpu_get_plat_device() documentation to make it
> > > > clear that the VPU platform device is returned with an incremented
> > > > reference count (which needs to be dropped after use).

> > > > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int vpu_ipi_send(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > > >   *		device for using VPU API.
> > > >   *
> > > >   * Return: Return NULL if it is failed.
> > > > - * otherwise it is VPU's platform device
> > > > + * otherwise it is VPU's platform device with incremented reference count
> > > 
> > > I picked this patch but rewrote with what felt like better and dense.
> > > 
> > > - * Return: Return NULL if it is failed.
> > > - * otherwise it is VPU's platform device
> > > + * Return: a reference to the VPU's platform device, or NULL on failure.
> > > 
> > > hope its ok with you,
> > 
> > Sure, my only concern is that just saying "reference" is too subtle,
> > that's why I explicitly mentioned the refcount.
> 
> For me everyone should read "a reference" as a kref based reference counted
> structure.  A quick grep across out documentation, this is the vast majority of
> the wording. Though, I spent limited time looking.

It should be sufficient but given how many people miss this it may still
be worth being more explicit.

> > Btw, why is patch 2/2 marked obsolete? That leak is still there both on
> > probe errors (which I saw someone else posted a fix for) and on driver
> > unbind.
> 
> I had two patches fixing the same thing, it just happen that I ended up picking
> the other one first

Ah, I had missed that and the fix is not in linux-next yet either so
without a reply it wasn't obvious.

> and liked you documentation fix, except it was replicating
> obvious weird english such as "if it is failed", and documenting the error
> before the expected outcome (opposite of my preference, not sure there is any
> rules or guidelines).

Yeah, I considered rewriting the whole comment too but given that the
surrounding comments used similar language I just amended what was
there.

But I'm totally fine with the update you did.

> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251008090156.14224-1-haoxiang_li2024@163.com/

Johan

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]