[PATCH v1 12/16] pinctrl: starfive: Add pinctrl driver for StarFive SoCs

[Emil Renner Berthing]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 18:29, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:23 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:56 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel at esmil.dk> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:48, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:35 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel at esmil.dk> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 19:03, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:43 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel at esmil.dk> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > > +       ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> > > > > > > +       if (ret) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +               reset_control_deassert(rst);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Use devm_add_action_or_reset().
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how that is better.
> > > >
> > > > Pity. The rule of thumb is to either try to use devm_*() everywhere in
> > > > the probe, or don't use it at all. Above is the more-or-less standard
> > > > pattern where devn_add_action_or_reset() is being used in the entire
> > > > kernel.
> > > >
> > > > > Then I'd first need to call that and
> > > > > check for errors, but just on the line below enabling the clock the
> > > > > reset line is deasserted anyway, so then the action isn't needed any
> > > > > longer. So that 3 lines of code for devm_add_action_or_reset +
> > > > > lingering unneeded action or code to remove it again vs. just the line
> > > > > above.
> > > >
> > > > Then don't use devm_*() at all. What's the point?
> > >
> > > I'm confused. So you wan't an unneeded action to linger because the
> > > probe function temporarily asserts reset for 3 lines of code?
> >
> > I;m talking about clk_prepare_enable().
>
> Having a second look I found even problematic error paths because of
> mixing devm_*() with non-devm_*() calls, which only assures me that
> your ->probe() error path is broken and should be revisited.

So do you want to expand on that now or should I send v2 first?