[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/5] dm: core: Remove the call to device_free()

[Bin Meng]

Hi Simon,

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On 10 September 2015 at 00:07, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Bin,
>>>
>>> On Friday, 4 September 2015, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When something goes wrong during device_probe(), we just need do
>>>> device_remove() which calls device_free() internally.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/core/device.c | 9 ++-------
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/core/device.c b/drivers/core/device.c
>>>> index a6cd936..061a7ef 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/core/device.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/core/device.c
>>>> @@ -316,19 +316,14 @@ int device_probe_child(struct udevice *dev, void *parent_priv)
>>>>
>>>>         ret = uclass_post_probe_device(dev);
>>>>         if (ret)
>>>> -               goto fail_uclass;
>>>> +               goto fail;
>>>>
>>>>         return 0;
>>>> -fail_uclass:
>>>> +fail:
>>>>         if (device_remove(dev)) {
>>>>                 dm_warn("%s: Device '%s' failed to remove on error path\n",
>>>>                         __func__, dev->name);
>>>>         }
>>>> -fail:
>>>> -       dev->flags &= ~DM_FLAG_ACTIVATED;
>>>> -
>>>> -       dev->seq = -1;
>>>> -       device_free(dev);
>>>>
>>>>         return ret;
>>>>  }
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that in this case you end up calling functions that
>>> should not be called. For example uclass_pre_remove_device() will be
>>> called even if uclass_post_probe_device() was not.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but doing uclass_pre_remove_device() should not bring any harm,
>> given we already want to remove this device, right?
>
> That function is entitled to assume that the device was set up at
> least to the post_remove uclass state. Here that would not be try, so
> we are creating an entirely new test case.
>
>>
>>> There is definitely room for improvement here - we could/should call
>>> only those 'remove' functions that mirror the 'probe' ones we called.
>>> But that is quite a lot of code for little benefit.
>

OK, will drop this.

Regards,
Bin