On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 04:28:22PM -0500, J. German Rivera wrote:
> @@ -350,17 +324,280 @@ int dprc_scan_container(struct fsl_mc_device
> *mc_bus_dev)
> * Discover objects in the DPRC:
> */
> mutex_lock(&mc_bus->scan_mutex);
> - error = dprc_scan_objects(mc_bus_dev);
> + error = dprc_scan_objects(mc_bus_dev, &irq_count);
> mutex_unlock(&mc_bus->scan_mutex);
> if (error < 0)
> - goto error;
> + return error;
> +
> + if (!mc_bus->irq_resources) {
This can never be true. It confused me for a while because otherwise it
looks like there is an obvious bug here. I also think
dprc_scan_container() should be named something alloc because that's
really what it does.
> + irq_count += FSL_MC_IRQ_POOL_MAX_EXTRA_IRQS;
> + error = fsl_mc_populate_irq_pool(mc_bus, irq_count);
> + if (error < 0)
> + return error;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
[ snip ]
> @@ -415,10 +652,20 @@ static int dprc_probe(struct fsl_mc_device *mc_dev)
> if (error < 0)
> goto error_cleanup_open;
>
> + /*
> + * Configure interrupts for the DPRC object associated with this MC bus:
> + */
> + error = dprc_setup_irqs(mc_dev);
> + if (error < 0)
> + goto error_cleanup_open;
> +
> dev_info(&mc_dev->dev, "DPRC device bound to driver");
> return 0;
>
> error_cleanup_open:
> + if (mc_bus->irq_resources)
> + fsl_mc_cleanup_irq_pool(mc_bus);
This isn't beautiful beause we're not cleaning up open here. We're
de-allocating dprc_scan_container(). Introduce a new label, and remove
the if statement so it looks like this:
error_free_scan:
unscan_the_container(mc_bus);
error_cleanup_open:
(void)dprc_close(mc_dev->mc_io, mc_dev->mc_handle);
> +
> (void)dprc_close(mc_dev->mc_io, mc_dev->mc_handle);
>
> error_cleanup_mc_io:
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
