Re: [PATCH] gpio: pxa: use devres for the clock struct

[Marion & Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>]

Le 26/08/2022 à 14:18, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
> Le 26/08/2022 à 10:20, Linus Walleij a écrit :
>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 12:15 AM Andy Shevchenko
>> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:26 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The clock is never released after probe(). Use devres to not leak
>>>> resources.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> -       clk = clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>>>> +       clk = devm_clk_get_enabled(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>>>>          if (IS_ERR(clk)) {
>>>>                  dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Error %ld to get gpio clock\n",
>>>>                          PTR_ERR(clk));
>>>>                  return PTR_ERR(clk);
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we fix a potential log saturation issue first (by switching
>>> to use dev_err_probe() helper)?
>>
>> Can be a separate patch, the clock mem leak is a bigger problem
>> IMO so this should be applied first.
>>
>> Hm isn't it possible to toss the task of fixing a gazillion
>> dev_err_probe() messages on Cocinelle scripts/coccinelle/? I bet it's 
>> something
>> the kernel janitors could fix all over the place.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Linus Walleij
>>
>
> // Both rules: 316 files changed, 1321 insertions(+), 1774 deletions(-)
> 


With an updated script, I spot:
    503 files changed, 1962 insertions(+), 2622 deletions(-)

(and 150-200 still needs some manual check or script adjustment)


Does this really make sense to send SO many patches for it?

If yes, should it be done on a per-system basis, or by driver basis?

CJ