[v1] usb: chipidea: tegra: Fix missed ci_hdrc_remove_device()
diff mbox series

Message ID 20190224153622.8877-1-digetx@gmail.com
State Deferred
Headers show
Series
  • [v1] usb: chipidea: tegra: Fix missed ci_hdrc_remove_device()
Related show

Commit Message

Dmitry Osipenko Feb. 24, 2019, 3:36 p.m. UTC
The ChipIdea's platform device need to be unregistered on Tegra's driver
module removal.

Fixes: dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for Tegra20/30/114/124")
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Comments

Peter Chen Feb. 25, 2019, 2:27 a.m. UTC | #1
> 
> Fixes: dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for Tegra20/30/114/124")

I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?

> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> b/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> index 772851bee99b..12025358bb3c 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> @@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ static int tegra_udc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
>  	struct tegra_udc *udc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> 
> +	ci_hdrc_remove_device(udc->dev);
>  	usb_phy_set_suspend(udc->phy, 1);
>  	clk_disable_unprepare(udc->clk);
> 
 
Acked-by: Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com>

Hi Greg, would you still accept the bug-fix for this release (v5.0)? Or I send you later?

Peter
Dmitry Osipenko Feb. 25, 2019, 5:07 a.m. UTC | #2
В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com> пишет:

>  
> > 
> > Fixes: dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for
> > Tegra20/30/114/124")  
> 
> I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
> 

It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all
relevant kernel versions.

> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> > b/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> > index 772851bee99b..12025358bb3c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> > @@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ static int tegra_udc_remove(struct
> > platform_device *pdev) {
> >  	struct tegra_udc *udc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > 
> > +	ci_hdrc_remove_device(udc->dev);
> >  	usb_phy_set_suspend(udc->phy, 1);
> >  	clk_disable_unprepare(udc->clk);
> >   
>  
> Acked-by: Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com>
> 
> Hi Greg, would you still accept the bug-fix for this release (v5.0)?
> Or I send you later?

I just want to point out that the bug existed for a very long time and
apparently didn't bother anybody, hence it's not an urgent fix.
Greg Kroah-Hartman Feb. 26, 2019, 10:56 a.m. UTC | #3
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 08:07:15AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
> Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com> пишет:
> 
> >  
> > > 
> > > Fixes: dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for
> > > Tegra20/30/114/124")  
> > 
> > I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
> > 
> 
> It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all
> relevant kernel versions.

No it is not.  My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please
read:
    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.


> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> > > b/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> > > index 772851bee99b..12025358bb3c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
> > > @@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ static int tegra_udc_remove(struct
> > > platform_device *pdev) {
> > >  	struct tegra_udc *udc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > 
> > > +	ci_hdrc_remove_device(udc->dev);
> > >  	usb_phy_set_suspend(udc->phy, 1);
> > >  	clk_disable_unprepare(udc->clk);
> > >   
> >  
> > Acked-by: Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com>
> > 
> > Hi Greg, would you still accept the bug-fix for this release (v5.0)?
> > Or I send you later?

I can pick it up now, thanks.

greg k-h
Dmitry Osipenko Feb. 26, 2019, 2:33 p.m. UTC | #4
26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 08:07:15AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
>> Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com> пишет:
>>
>>>  
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for
>>>> Tegra20/30/114/124")  
>>>
>>> I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
>>>
>>
>> It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all
>> relevant kernel versions.
> 
> No it is not.  My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please
> read:
>     https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> for how to do this properly.

Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.
Greg Kroah-Hartman Feb. 26, 2019, 2:58 p.m. UTC | #5
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 05:33:05PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 08:07:15AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
> >> Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com> пишет:
> >>
> >>>  
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for
> >>>> Tegra20/30/114/124")  
> >>>
> >>> I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
> >>>
> >>
> >> It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all
> >> relevant kernel versions.
> > 
> > No it is not.  My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please
> > read:
> >     https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> > for how to do this properly.
> 
> Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.

Why?  It's allowed to put fixes: tags for a patch that does not belong
in a stable tree.  That happens all the time, and is encouraged.  Look
at some of the stuff in linux-next now, we have Fixes: for commits that
are still in linux-next as well, because we do not rebase our trees.
When they all merge into Linus's tree, all is good.

So this is not something that checkpatch needs to do anything about.

thanks,

greg k-h
Dmitry Osipenko Feb. 26, 2019, 3:08 p.m. UTC | #6
26.02.2019 17:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 05:33:05PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 08:07:15AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
>>>> Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com> пишет:
>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for
>>>>>> Tegra20/30/114/124")  
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all
>>>> relevant kernel versions.
>>>
>>> No it is not.  My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please
>>> read:
>>>     https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
>>> for how to do this properly.
>>
>> Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.
> 
> Why?  It's allowed to put fixes: tags for a patch that does not belong
> in a stable tree.  That happens all the time, and is encouraged.  Look
> at some of the stuff in linux-next now, we have Fixes: for commits that
> are still in linux-next as well, because we do not rebase our trees.
> When they all merge into Linus's tree, all is good.
> 
> So this is not something that checkpatch needs to do anything about.

At least that might help in cases like this if maintainer is also oblivious.

I guess it wouldn't hurt at all to add a "green" warning if there is a "Fixes" tag and no "stable", something like this:

WARNING: There is a "Fixes" tag and no "Cc: stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>", please add the stable tag if patch is intended to be backported to stable kernels.
Greg Kroah-Hartman Feb. 26, 2019, 3:21 p.m. UTC | #7
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:08:17PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 26.02.2019 17:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 05:33:05PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> 26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 08:07:15AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >>>> В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
> >>>> Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com> пишет:
> >>>>
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for
> >>>>>> Tegra20/30/114/124")  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all
> >>>> relevant kernel versions.
> >>>
> >>> No it is not.  My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please
> >>> read:
> >>>     https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> >>> for how to do this properly.
> >>
> >> Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.
> > 
> > Why?  It's allowed to put fixes: tags for a patch that does not belong
> > in a stable tree.  That happens all the time, and is encouraged.  Look
> > at some of the stuff in linux-next now, we have Fixes: for commits that
> > are still in linux-next as well, because we do not rebase our trees.
> > When they all merge into Linus's tree, all is good.
> > 
> > So this is not something that checkpatch needs to do anything about.
> 
> At least that might help in cases like this if maintainer is also oblivious.

If the maintainer is "oblivious", they are not going to be running
checkpatch :)

Remember, the "Fixes:" tag is a relatively new thing compared to the cc:
stable tag, which has been a documented requirement for over a decade.
Yes, some subsystems do not even do cc: stable, but that is because
those subsystem maintainers do not want to do it, or do not care.
Again, checkpatch is not going to help them.

checkpatch is not a panacea, people still have to use their brains.

greg k-h
Dmitry Osipenko Feb. 26, 2019, 3:40 p.m. UTC | #8
26.02.2019 18:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:08:17PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 26.02.2019 17:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 05:33:05PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 08:07:15AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>> В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
>>>>>> Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com> пишет:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes: dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for
>>>>>>>> Tegra20/30/114/124")  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all
>>>>>> relevant kernel versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it is not.  My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please
>>>>> read:
>>>>>     https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
>>>>> for how to do this properly.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.
>>>
>>> Why?  It's allowed to put fixes: tags for a patch that does not belong
>>> in a stable tree.  That happens all the time, and is encouraged.  Look
>>> at some of the stuff in linux-next now, we have Fixes: for commits that
>>> are still in linux-next as well, because we do not rebase our trees.
>>> When they all merge into Linus's tree, all is good.
>>>
>>> So this is not something that checkpatch needs to do anything about.
>>
>> At least that might help in cases like this if maintainer is also oblivious.
> 
> If the maintainer is "oblivious", they are not going to be running
> checkpatch :)
> 
> Remember, the "Fixes:" tag is a relatively new thing compared to the cc:
> stable tag, which has been a documented requirement for over a decade.
> Yes, some subsystems do not even do cc: stable, but that is because
> those subsystem maintainers do not want to do it, or do not care.
> Again, checkpatch is not going to help them.
> 
> checkpatch is not a panacea, people still have to use their brains.

My point that either submitter or maintainers may catch up the problem if at least there are means to report the problem. So I'm still thinking it's not a bad idea to add the warning message, maybe even for the "checkpatch --strict" option only. I'm not insisting that it is something super-necessary and it's up to you guys to decide in the end.

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c b/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
index 772851bee99b..12025358bb3c 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@  static int tegra_udc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct tegra_udc *udc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
 
+	ci_hdrc_remove_device(udc->dev);
 	usb_phy_set_suspend(udc->phy, 1);
 	clk_disable_unprepare(udc->clk);