On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 06:22:44PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > +}
>
> > +static void cca_tsm_remove(void *tsm_core)
> > +{
> > + tsm_unregister(tsm_core);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int cca_tsm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct tsm_core_dev *tsm_core;
> > +
> > + tsm_core = tsm_register(&pdev->dev, NULL, &cca_pci_ops);
> > + if (IS_ERR(tsm_core))
> > + return PTR_ERR(tsm_core);
> > +
> > + return devm_add_action_or_reset(&pdev->dev, cca_tsm_remove, tsm_core);
>
> So this makes two with the one in Dan's test code.
> devm_tsm_register() seems to be a useful generic thing to add (implementation
> being exactly what you have here.
Pelase no, this is insane, you have a probed driver with a
probe/remove function pairing already. Why on earth would you use devm
just to call a remove function :(
Just put tsm_unregister() in the normal driver remove like it is
supposed to be done and use the drvdata to pass the tsm_core_dev
pointer. It is easy and normal, look at fwctl for a very simple
example.
devm is useful to solve complex things, these trivial things should be
done normally..
Jason
