在 2025/9/5 14:57, Andreas Kemnade 写道:
Am Wed, 3 Sep 2025 21:17:32 +0800
schrieb Zihuan Zhang <zhangzih...@kylinos.cn>:
Replace the manual cpufreq_cpu_put() with __free(put_cpufreq_policy)
annotation for policy references. This reduces the risk of reference
counting mistakes and aligns the code with the latest kernel style.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzih...@kylinos.cn>
---
drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c | 13 ++++---------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
b/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
index 0cf0826b805a..37d06468913a 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
@@ -27,7 +27,6 @@
/* common data structures */
struct ti_thermal_data {
- struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
struct thermal_zone_device *ti_thermal;
struct thermal_zone_device *pcb_tz;
struct thermal_cooling_device *cool_dev;
@@ -218,6 +217,7 @@ int ti_thermal_register_cpu_cooling(struct ti_bandgap *bgp,
int id)
{
struct ti_thermal_data *data;
struct device_node *np = bgp->dev->of_node;
+ struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
this looks as it changes the lifecycle from the device lifetime to just
this function...
I thought policy was only used in this function, so I moved it here.
Thanks for clarifying the lifecycle issue.
/*
* We are assuming here that if one deploys the zone
@@ -234,19 +234,17 @@ int ti_thermal_register_cpu_cooling(struct ti_bandgap
*bgp, int id)
if (!data)
return -EINVAL;
- data->policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
- if (!data->policy) {
+ if (!policy) {
pr_debug("%s: CPUFreq policy not found\n", __func__);
return -EPROBE_DEFER;
}
/* Register cooling device */
- data->cool_dev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy);
+ data->cool_dev = cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
and it is passed on to something living beyond this function. I see no
_get(policy) in cpufreq_cooling_register().
Am I missing something?
This indeed causes a problem.
Sure, I will drop the patchset.
Thanks!
Regards,
Andreas
