On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:09:03PM +0100, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c b/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c
index ab2467998d29..8c3de31f51b3 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_drv.c

@@ -905,6 +905,10 @@ static int hantro_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
  			return PTR_ERR(vpu->clocks[0].clk);
  	}
+	vpu->resets = devm_reset_control_array_get(&pdev->dev, false, true);
+	if (IS_ERR(vpu->resets))
+		return PTR_ERR(vpu->resets);
+
  	num_bases = vpu->variant->num_regs ?: 1;
  	vpu->reg_bases = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, num_bases,
  				      sizeof(*vpu->reg_bases), GFP_KERNEL);

@@ -978,10 +982,16 @@ static int hantro_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
  	pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(vpu->dev);
  	pm_runtime_enable(vpu->dev);

        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It looks like this is the pm stuff that we have to unwind on error

quoted

+	ret = reset_control_deassert(vpu->resets);
+	if (ret) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to deassert resets\n");
+		return ret;

                ^^^^^^^^^^
So this return should be a goto undo_pm_stuff

quoted

+	}
+
  	ret = clk_bulk_prepare(vpu->variant->num_clocks, vpu->clocks);
  	if (ret) {
  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to prepare clocks\n");
-		return ret;

And this return should also have been a goto so it's a bug in the
original code.

quoted

+		goto err_rst_assert;

Before your patch is applied if clk_bulk_prepare() fails, we
simply return on the spot. After the patch is applied not only
do you...

quoted

  	}
  	ret = v4l2_device_register(&pdev->dev, &vpu->v4l2_dev);

@@ -1037,6 +1047,8 @@ static int hantro_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
  	v4l2_device_unregister(&vpu->v4l2_dev);
  err_clk_unprepare:
  	clk_bulk_unprepare(vpu->variant->num_clocks, vpu->clocks);
+err_rst_assert:
+	reset_control_assert(vpu->resets);

...revert the effect of reset_control_deassert(), you also...

quoted

  	pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(vpu->dev);
  	pm_runtime_disable(vpu->dev);

... do pm_*() stuff. Is there any reason why this is needed?

So, yes, it's needed, but you're correct to spot that it's not
consistent.

regards,
dan carpenter