From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:36318 "EHLO mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932333AbcJZUqw (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:46:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:46:48 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Brian Norris Cc: Rajat Jain , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Xinming Hu , Amitkumar Karwar , Brian Norris , Kalle Valo , Rob Herring , rajatxjain@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mwifiex: parse device tree node for PCIe Message-ID: <20161026204648.GD3989@dtor-ws> (sfid-20161026_224656_597961_E626DDF7) References: <1477070156-109965-1-git-send-email-rajatja@google.com> <1477084869-15612-1-git-send-email-rajatja@google.com> <20161026201735.GA10192@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20161026201735.GA10192@localhost> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 01:17:36PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > Hi Rajat, > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 02:21:09PM -0700, Rajat Jain wrote: > > From: Xinming Hu > > > > This patch derives device tree node from pcie bus layer framework, and > > fixes a minor memory leak in mwifiex_pcie_probe() (in failure path). > > Device tree bindings file has been renamed(marvell-sd8xxx.txt -> > > marvell-8xxx.txt) to accommodate PCIe changes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu > > Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar > > Signed-off-by: Rajat Jain > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris > > --- > > v2: Included vendor and product IDs in compatible strings for PCIe > > chipsets(Rob Herring) > > v3: Patch is created using -M option so that it will only include diff of > > original and renamed files(Rob Herring) > > Resend v3: Resending the patch because I missed to include device tree mailing > > while sending v3. > > v4: Fix error handling, also move-on even if no device tree node is present. > > v5: Update commit log to include memory leak, return -EINVAL instead of -1. > > I've been working on reworking some bugfixes for this driver, and I > noticed we have some problems w.r.t. memory leaks, and the "memory leak" > fix is not actually a fix. See below. Sorry, I just saw this... Why do we need devicetree data for discoverable bus (PCI)? How does the driver work on systems that do not use DT? Why do we need them to behave differently? Thanks. -- Dmitry From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mwifiex: parse device tree node for PCIe Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:46:48 -0700 Message-ID: <20161026204648.GD3989@dtor-ws> References: <1477070156-109965-1-git-send-email-rajatja@google.com> <1477084869-15612-1-git-send-email-rajatja@google.com> <20161026201735.GA10192@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161026201735.GA10192@localhost> Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Brian Norris Cc: Rajat Jain , linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Xinming Hu , Amitkumar Karwar , Brian Norris , Kalle Valo , Rob Herring , rajatxjain-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 01:17:36PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > Hi Rajat, > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 02:21:09PM -0700, Rajat Jain wrote: > > From: Xinming Hu > > > > This patch derives device tree node from pcie bus layer framework, and > > fixes a minor memory leak in mwifiex_pcie_probe() (in failure path). > > Device tree bindings file has been renamed(marvell-sd8xxx.txt -> > > marvell-8xxx.txt) to accommodate PCIe changes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu > > Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar > > Signed-off-by: Rajat Jain > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris > > --- > > v2: Included vendor and product IDs in compatible strings for PCIe > > chipsets(Rob Herring) > > v3: Patch is created using -M option so that it will only include diff of > > original and renamed files(Rob Herring) > > Resend v3: Resending the patch because I missed to include device tree mailing > > while sending v3. > > v4: Fix error handling, also move-on even if no device tree node is present. > > v5: Update commit log to include memory leak, return -EINVAL instead of -1. > > I've been working on reworking some bugfixes for this driver, and I > noticed we have some problems w.r.t. memory leaks, and the "memory leak" > fix is not actually a fix. See below. Sorry, I just saw this... Why do we need devicetree data for discoverable bus (PCI)? How does the driver work on systems that do not use DT? Why do we need them to behave differently? Thanks. -- Dmitry