| Message ID | 20190820154239.8230-2-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | rtc: convert two drivers to devm_i2c_new_dummy_device() | expand |
On 20/08/2019 17:42:37+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > I was about to simplify the call to i2c_unregister_device() when I > realized that converting to devm_i2c_new_dummy_device() will simplify > the driver a lot. So I took this approach. > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > --- > Build tested only, buildbot is happy, too. > > Please apply to your tree. > I'm confused because I already applied: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/linux.git/commit/?h=rtc-next&id=7150710f3084de8d35ce3221eeae2caee8813f92 > drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 17 ++++------------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c > index d04fd1024697..4027b33034dc 100644 > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c > @@ -693,8 +693,8 @@ static int max77686_init_rtc_regmap(struct max77686_rtc_info *info) > goto add_rtc_irq; > } > > - info->rtc = i2c_new_dummy_device(parent_i2c->adapter, > - info->drv_data->rtc_i2c_addr); > + info->rtc = devm_i2c_new_dummy_device(info->dev, parent_i2c->adapter, > + info->drv_data->rtc_i2c_addr); > if (IS_ERR(info->rtc)) { > dev_err(info->dev, "Failed to allocate I2C device for RTC\n"); > return PTR_ERR(info->rtc); > @@ -705,7 +705,7 @@ static int max77686_init_rtc_regmap(struct max77686_rtc_info *info) > if (IS_ERR(info->rtc_regmap)) { > ret = PTR_ERR(info->rtc_regmap); > dev_err(info->dev, "Failed to allocate RTC regmap: %d\n", ret); > - goto err_unregister_i2c; > + return ret; > } > > add_rtc_irq: > @@ -715,15 +715,10 @@ static int max77686_init_rtc_regmap(struct max77686_rtc_info *info) > &info->rtc_irq_data); > if (ret < 0) { > dev_err(info->dev, "Failed to add RTC irq chip: %d\n", ret); > - goto err_unregister_i2c; > + return ret; > } > > return 0; > - > -err_unregister_i2c: > - if (info->rtc) > - i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc); > - return ret; > } > > static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > @@ -786,8 +781,6 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > err_rtc: > regmap_del_irq_chip(info->rtc_irq, info->rtc_irq_data); > - if (info->rtc) > - i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc); > > return ret; > } > @@ -798,8 +791,6 @@ static int max77686_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > free_irq(info->virq, info); > regmap_del_irq_chip(info->rtc_irq, info->rtc_irq_data); > - if (info->rtc) > - i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc); > > return 0; > } > -- > 2.20.1 >
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:57:52PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 20/08/2019 17:42:37+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > I was about to simplify the call to i2c_unregister_device() when I > > realized that converting to devm_i2c_new_dummy_device() will simplify > > the driver a lot. So I took this approach. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > --- > > Build tested only, buildbot is happy, too. > > > > Please apply to your tree. > > > > I'm confused because I already applied: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/linux.git/commit/?h=rtc-next&id=7150710f3084de8d35ce3221eeae2caee8813f92 The above was a mass conversion to i2c_new_dummy_device() to make sure all in-kernel users use the API returning an ERRPTR. Mass conversion to the devm_ variant of the same function was too troublesome. With another series, I wanted to remove superfluous error checking of i2c_unregister_device() because it is NULL-ptr safe, like here: > > - if (info->rtc) > > - i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc); But for these two RTC drivers, I figured moving to devm_* is way easier than fixing up the mass conversion result from coccinelle.
On 30/08/2019 14:45:54+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:57:52PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 20/08/2019 17:42:37+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > I was about to simplify the call to i2c_unregister_device() when I > > > realized that converting to devm_i2c_new_dummy_device() will simplify > > > the driver a lot. So I took this approach. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > > --- > > > Build tested only, buildbot is happy, too. > > > > > > Please apply to your tree. > > > > > > > I'm confused because I already applied: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/linux.git/commit/?h=rtc-next&id=7150710f3084de8d35ce3221eeae2caee8813f92 > > The above was a mass conversion to i2c_new_dummy_device() to make sure > all in-kernel users use the API returning an ERRPTR. Mass conversion to > the devm_ variant of the same function was too troublesome. > > With another series, I wanted to remove superfluous error checking of > i2c_unregister_device() because it is NULL-ptr safe, like here: > > > > - if (info->rtc) > > > - i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc); > > But for these two RTC drivers, I figured moving to devm_* is way easier > than fixing up the mass conversion result from coccinelle. > Ok so should I drop the previous patches and apply those instead?
> > > I'm confused because I already applied: > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/linux.git/commit/?h=rtc-next&id=7150710f3084de8d35ce3221eeae2caee8813f92 > > > > The above was a mass conversion to i2c_new_dummy_device() to make sure > > all in-kernel users use the API returning an ERRPTR. Mass conversion to > > the devm_ variant of the same function was too troublesome. > > > > With another series, I wanted to remove superfluous error checking of > > i2c_unregister_device() because it is NULL-ptr safe, like here: > > > > > > - if (info->rtc) > > > > - i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc); > > > > But for these two RTC drivers, I figured moving to devm_* is way easier > > than fixing up the mass conversion result from coccinelle. > > > > Ok so should I drop the previous patches and apply those instead? Nope, they should be incremental, aren't they?
On 30/08/2019 15:00:35+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > I'm confused because I already applied: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/linux.git/commit/?h=rtc-next&id=7150710f3084de8d35ce3221eeae2caee8813f92 > > > > > > The above was a mass conversion to i2c_new_dummy_device() to make sure > > > all in-kernel users use the API returning an ERRPTR. Mass conversion to > > > the devm_ variant of the same function was too troublesome. > > > > > > With another series, I wanted to remove superfluous error checking of > > > i2c_unregister_device() because it is NULL-ptr safe, like here: > > > > > > > > - if (info->rtc) > > > > > - i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc); > > > > > > But for these two RTC drivers, I figured moving to devm_* is way easier > > > than fixing up the mass conversion result from coccinelle. > > > > > > > Ok so should I drop the previous patches and apply those instead? > > Nope, they should be incremental, aren't they? > No, your patches don't apply on top of rtc-next
> > Nope, they should be incremental, aren't they? > > > No, your patches don't apply on top of rtc-next Looks like you edited some whitespaces to match opening parens before applying? I'll resend to match these.
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c index d04fd1024697..4027b33034dc 100644 --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c @@ -693,8 +693,8 @@ static int max77686_init_rtc_regmap(struct max77686_rtc_info *info) goto add_rtc_irq; } - info->rtc = i2c_new_dummy_device(parent_i2c->adapter, - info->drv_data->rtc_i2c_addr); + info->rtc = devm_i2c_new_dummy_device(info->dev, parent_i2c->adapter, + info->drv_data->rtc_i2c_addr); if (IS_ERR(info->rtc)) { dev_err(info->dev, "Failed to allocate I2C device for RTC\n"); return PTR_ERR(info->rtc); @@ -705,7 +705,7 @@ static int max77686_init_rtc_regmap(struct max77686_rtc_info *info) if (IS_ERR(info->rtc_regmap)) { ret = PTR_ERR(info->rtc_regmap); dev_err(info->dev, "Failed to allocate RTC regmap: %d\n", ret); - goto err_unregister_i2c; + return ret; } add_rtc_irq: @@ -715,15 +715,10 @@ static int max77686_init_rtc_regmap(struct max77686_rtc_info *info) &info->rtc_irq_data); if (ret < 0) { dev_err(info->dev, "Failed to add RTC irq chip: %d\n", ret); - goto err_unregister_i2c; + return ret; } return 0; - -err_unregister_i2c: - if (info->rtc) - i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc); - return ret; } static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) @@ -786,8 +781,6 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) err_rtc: regmap_del_irq_chip(info->rtc_irq, info->rtc_irq_data); - if (info->rtc) - i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc); return ret; } @@ -798,8 +791,6 @@ static int max77686_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) free_irq(info->virq, info); regmap_del_irq_chip(info->rtc_irq, info->rtc_irq_data); - if (info->rtc) - i2c_unregister_device(info->rtc); return 0; }
I was about to simplify the call to i2c_unregister_device() when I realized that converting to devm_i2c_new_dummy_device() will simplify the driver a lot. So I took this approach. Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> --- Build tested only, buildbot is happy, too. Please apply to your tree. drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 17 ++++------------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)