Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] power: supply: Clean-up few drivers by using managed work init

[Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>]

Hello Chen-Yu, Hans, Greg,

On Tue, 2021-03-23 at 22:36 +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:58 PM Matti Vaittinen
> <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> wrote:
> > Few drivers implement remove call-back only for ensuring a delayed
> > work gets cancelled prior driver removal. Clean-up these by
> > switching
> > to use devm_delayed_work_autocancel() instead.
> > 
> > This change is compile-tested only. All testing is appreciated.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
> > Acked-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.com>
> > ---
> > Changelog from RFCv2:
> >  - RFC dropped. No functional changes.
> > 
> >  drivers/power/supply/axp20x_usb_power.c      | 15 +++++----------
> >  drivers/power/supply/bq24735-charger.c       | 18 ++++++--------
> > ----
> >  drivers/power/supply/ltc2941-battery-gauge.c | 20 +++++++---------
> > ----
> >  drivers/power/supply/sbs-battery.c           | 16 +++++-----------
> >  4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_usb_power.c
> > b/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_usb_power.c
> > index 8933ae26c3d6..4259709e3491 100644
> > --- a/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_usb_power.c
> > +++ b/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_usb_power.c
> > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > 
> >  #include <linux/bitops.h>
> >  #include <linux/device.h>
> > +#include <linux/devm-helpers.h>
> >  #include <linux/init.h>
> >  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > @@ -646,21 +647,16 @@ static int axp20x_usb_power_probe(struct
> > platform_device *pdev)
> >                 }
> >         }
> > 
> > +       ret = devm_delayed_work_autocancel(&pdev->dev, &power-
> > >vbus_detect,
> > +                                          axp20x_usb_power_poll_vb
> > us);
> > +       if (ret)
> > +               return ret;
> 
> This doesn't look right. The IRQ is requested before this, and the
> delayed_work
> struct is initialized even earlier, so you'd be re-initializing the
> struct,
> with the work item potentially running or queued up already.

Sigh. The company mail had redirected this to spam... :/
I will check this and send appropriate follow-up fix(es) to Greg. Big
thanks for the heads-up!

--Matti