From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7422953D9D4; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 12:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.6 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790080175; cv=none; b=R6lEfnTOhjzO4QY6qSK3yemJTvZ2jMI0f+TKSwi7zvPwk2XwJiaR92SjTm5sWNCtB7e8BdowJg245weenHPtV8qg0+PqBmgCAiczUhIo4eH0Ry1O+DMtogQa2c/aGHmNa/vqKcdaF2VqAFq0UWt/gL73AbigU9VNinse83r4o5c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790080175; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pqD36nJS2t/GmEx9i84xJKll99YBX8VLzR/Coeg3uWw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IJly/GEsERiMynKaL5cMJvmOP/vnX7HyavByjBKzQhWjjzcF3woo7Oyg7/zmXOpzu/fpqku5QBljNzbzXF7dg2jZyLvB3I3DQkWJ4bUCFbmgGkDMpYz/qQQKdSm8birA4JcunWnEqYJ9ND9LoW8CNDtzC2Xl7A4olElEtkGK3VU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=mhXi4wI/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.6 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="mhXi4wI/" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1790080174; x=1821616174; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pqD36nJS2t/GmEx9i84xJKll99YBX8VLzR/Coeg3uWw=; b=mhXi4wI/mic/IJOh+JIip01hvs+myuPKZnr+n9iD2TI4FGVKAGb1iui/ NU2wIXxwWPtANeoWd49c29GTtdQZzOkQVORNDwzWWhr0m0KJwLRvcFwjL bXhtRwwL1EJdH1lpXVLQ83SFq8vVH1fVeqbQoKyr3C923lxyomrlNAAoK tSjv9czlnEM3vk0dKOoqvfGk4QwhHs/6dSz4u1sL5FeH3YQagLD0UfIFG aXor6UlPT1caoaRSNYT4TzY/x5Ncn+2wnJsFZMkjdveaZjrnSTGhIw0EL HyDZzMk+tM/gPrzyQiE3dfj2IRRbPzhtwfyr+Jaz6paCUgNxm1szzhNpX Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: R68bK0qKQnK06qbd591HLg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: KlEEBqdyQeOepTP+4JWyJw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11912"; a="1179527" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,116,1787036400"; d="scan'208";a="1179527" Received: from fmviesa002.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.142]) by fmvoesa116.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Sep 2026 05:29:28 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: u5rgthFRRceF6JOgL9hxFg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: D1/+FC9OQ4qRh3912qp6/w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,116,1787036400"; d="scan'208";a="299350500" Received: from ettammin-mobl2.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.93]) by fmviesa002-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Sep 2026 05:29:27 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 15:29:24 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Guangshuo Li Cc: Mika Westerberg , Lee Jones , mfd@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: intel-lpss: fix iDMA device leak on probe failure Message-ID: References: <20260921104058.353748-1-lgs201920130244@gmail.com> <20260921110512.GS106095@black.igk.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 03:59:32PM +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sept 2026 at 19:05, Mika Westerberg > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 06:40:58PM +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote: > > I think this could use devm_mfd_add_devices() instead. > > > > > The issue was identified by a static analysis tool I developed and > > > confirmed by manual review. > Do you mean converting both MFD registrations to devm_mfd_add_devices() > and dropping the explicit mfd_remove_devices() from the remove path, like > this? Won't work properly. The rule of thumb, it should be no 'goto' after devm_*() call. > Would this be the preferred change? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko