On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 08:06:17PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote: > Hi > > On Jul 6, 2015 8:01 PM, "Felipe Balbi" <ba...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it > > fails, it will leave dev->power.wakeirq set to a > > dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make > > sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq() > > has chance to succeed. > > > > Cc: Tony Lindgren <tml...@atomide.com> > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <ba...@ti.com> > > --- > > drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 ++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c > > @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev, > int irq, > > > > err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq); > > if (err) > > - return err; > > + goto err_cleanup; > > > > return 0; > > + > > +err_cleanup: > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->power.lock, flags); > > + dev->power.wakeirq = NULL; > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags); > > + > > Why here and not in the fuction that return the error?
because the field was set here, why would I clear it elsewhere ? -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
