On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 9:49 AM Lh Kuo 郭力豪 [off-list ref] wrote:

(Uncommented is okay)

...

quoted

quoted

        ret = devm_request_irq(dev, pspim->mas_irq, sp7021_spi_mas_irq
                                                , IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
pdev->name, pspim);

Ugly indentation.

Amended as follows, is it okay?

        ret = devm_request_irq(dev, pspim->mas_irq, sp7021_spi_mas_irq
                        , IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, pdev->name, pspim);
        if (ret)
                return ret;

Still not okay. Have you seen this style somewhere in the kernel?
Hint: something is really wrong with comma's location.

...

quoted

quoted

        pm_runtime_enable(dev);

        ret = devm_spi_register_controller(dev, ctlr);

You can't mix non-devm with devm APIs. Either all non-devm, or devm followed by non-devm.

  I don't understand so I need to change to spi_register_controller(ctlr)?   why?

I haven't told you that. What I'm saying is this:
1) all calls are devm_*() - OK!
2) all calls are non-devm_*() OK!
3) devm_*() followed by non-devm_*() OK!
4) non-devm_*() call followed by devm_*() call  NOT okay!

You need to fulfil your homework (see plenty of the examples in the
Linux kernel source tree on how to proceed).

I modified the remove-function as follows. I think devm_spi_register_controller(dev, ctlr); should be no problem in the probe funciton.

It has ordering issues. That's why 4) above is not okay.

static int sp7021_spi_controller_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
        struct spi_controller *ctlr = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
        struct sp7021_spi_ctlr *pspim = spi_master_get_devdata(ctlr);

        pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
        pm_runtime_set_suspended(&pdev->dev);
        reset_control_assert(pspim->rstc);
        clk_disable_unprepare(pspim->spi_clk);

        return 0;
}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko