[RFC PATCH v7 5/8] ice: implement dpll interface to control cgu

[Kubalewski, Arkadiusz]

>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 8:15 AM
>
>Thu, May 18, 2023 at 06:06:03PM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski at intel.com wrote:
>>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 8:26 AM
>>>
>>>Tue, May 16, 2023 at 12:07:57AM CEST, arkadiusz.kubalewski at intel.com
>>>wrote:
>>>>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri at resnulli.us>
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 2:19 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 02:20:06AM CEST, vadfed at meta.com wrote:
>>>>>>From: Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski at intel.com>
>
>[...]
>
>
>>>>>>+			pins[i].pin = NULL;
>>>>>>+			return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>+		}
>>>>>>+		if (cgu) {
>>>>>>+			ret = dpll_pin_register(pf->dplls.eec.dpll,
>>>>>>+						pins[i].pin,
>>>>>>+						ops, pf, NULL);
>>>>>>+			if (ret)
>>>>>>+				return ret;
>>>>>>+			ret = dpll_pin_register(pf->dplls.pps.dpll,
>>>>>>+						pins[i].pin,
>>>>>>+						ops, pf, NULL);
>>>>>>+			if (ret)
>>>>>>+				return ret;
>>>>>
>>>>>You have to call dpll_pin_unregister(pf->dplls.eec.dpll, pins[i].pin,
>>>>>..)
>>>>>here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, in case of error, the caller releases everything
>>>ice_dpll_release_all(..).
>>>
>>>
>>>How does ice_dpll_release_all() where you failed? If you need to
>>>unregister one or both or none? I know that in ice you have odd ways to
>>>handle error paths in general, but this one clearly seems to be broken.
>>>
>>
>>It doesn't have to, as release all would release all anyway.
>>Leaving it for now.
>
>So you call dpll_pin_unregister() even for the pin that was not
>registered before? How is that even remotely correct?
>
>Fix your error paths, please. I don't understand the resistance here :)
>
>[...]

Fixed.

Thank you,
Arkadiusz