Am Wed, 3 Sep 2025 21:17:32 +0800
schrieb Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Replace the manual cpufreq_cpu_put() with __free(put_cpufreq_policy)
> annotation for policy references. This reduces the risk of reference
> counting mistakes and aligns the code with the latest kernel style.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c | 13 ++++---------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c b/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
> index 0cf0826b805a..37d06468913a 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@
>
> /* common data structures */
> struct ti_thermal_data {
> - struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> struct thermal_zone_device *ti_thermal;
> struct thermal_zone_device *pcb_tz;
> struct thermal_cooling_device *cool_dev;
> @@ -218,6 +217,7 @@ int ti_thermal_register_cpu_cooling(struct ti_bandgap *bgp, int id)
> {
> struct ti_thermal_data *data;
> struct device_node *np = bgp->dev->of_node;
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
>
this looks as it changes the lifecycle from the device lifetime to just
this function...
> /*
> * We are assuming here that if one deploys the zone
> @@ -234,19 +234,17 @@ int ti_thermal_register_cpu_cooling(struct ti_bandgap *bgp, int id)
> if (!data)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - data->policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
> - if (!data->policy) {
> + if (!policy) {
> pr_debug("%s: CPUFreq policy not found\n", __func__);
> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> }
>
> /* Register cooling device */
> - data->cool_dev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy);
> + data->cool_dev = cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
and it is passed on to something living beyond this function. I see no
_get(policy) in cpufreq_cooling_register().
Am I missing something?
Regards,
Andreas
