Jonathan Cameron wrote:
[..]
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/tsm.c b/drivers/pci/tsm.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..0784cc436dd3
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/tsm.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,554 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * TEE Security Manager for the TEE Device Interface Security Protocol
> > > > + * (TDISP, PCIe r6.1 sec 11)
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Copyright(c) 2024 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > > +static void tsm_remove(struct pci_tsm *tsm)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct pci_dev *pdev;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!tsm)
> > >
> > > You protect against this in the DEFINE_FREE() so probably safe
> > > to assume it is always set if we get here.
> >
> > It is safe, but I would rather not require reading other code to
> > understand the expectation that some callers may unconditionally call
> > this routine.
>
> I think a function like remove being called on 'nothing' should
> pretty much always be a bug, but meh, up to you.
I should have noted earlier that tsm_probe() on subfunctions might fail
without failing the 'connect' operation and unwinding the subfunctions
that did probe successfully. tsm_probe() should rarely fail, it is just
subject to kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) failure in most cases.
So at shutdown time tsm_remove() will opportunistically cleanup just the
subfunctions that probed.
