| Message ID | 20241030-bluetooth-btbcm-node-cleanup-v1-2-fdc4b9df9fe3@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Bluetooth: btbcm: fix missing of_node_put() in btbcm_get_board_name() | expand |
On 30/10/2024 16:46, Javier Carrasco wrote: > Switch to a more robust approach by automating the node release when it > goes out of scope, removing the need for explicit calls to > of_node_put(). > > Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 8 ++------ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c > index 400c2663d6b0..a1153ada74d2 100644 > --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c > +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c > @@ -541,23 +541,19 @@ static const struct bcm_subver_table bcm_usb_subver_table[] = { > static const char *btbcm_get_board_name(struct device *dev) > { > #ifdef CONFIG_OF > - struct device_node *root; > + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/"); > char *board_type; > const char *tmp; > > - root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); > if (!root) > return NULL; > > - if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) { > - of_node_put(root); You just added this. Don't add code which is immediately removed. It's a noop or wrong code. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 31/10/2024 12:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 30/10/2024 16:46, Javier Carrasco wrote: >> Switch to a more robust approach by automating the node release when it >> goes out of scope, removing the need for explicit calls to >> of_node_put(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 8 ++------ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >> index 400c2663d6b0..a1153ada74d2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >> @@ -541,23 +541,19 @@ static const struct bcm_subver_table bcm_usb_subver_table[] = { >> static const char *btbcm_get_board_name(struct device *dev) >> { >> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >> - struct device_node *root; >> + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >> char *board_type; >> const char *tmp; >> >> - root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >> if (!root) >> return NULL; >> >> - if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) { >> - of_node_put(root); > > You just added this. Don't add code which is immediately removed. It's a > noop or wrong code. > > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Exactly, I added that code to fix the issue in stable kernels that don't support the __free() macro, and then I removed it to use a safer approach from now on. Best regards, Javier Carrasco
On 31/10/2024 12:10, Javier Carrasco wrote: > On 31/10/2024 12:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 30/10/2024 16:46, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>> Switch to a more robust approach by automating the node release when it >>> goes out of scope, removing the need for explicit calls to >>> of_node_put(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 8 ++------ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>> index 400c2663d6b0..a1153ada74d2 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>> @@ -541,23 +541,19 @@ static const struct bcm_subver_table bcm_usb_subver_table[] = { >>> static const char *btbcm_get_board_name(struct device *dev) >>> { >>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >>> - struct device_node *root; >>> + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>> char *board_type; >>> const char *tmp; >>> >>> - root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>> if (!root) >>> return NULL; >>> >>> - if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) { >>> - of_node_put(root); >> >> You just added this. Don't add code which is immediately removed. It's a >> noop or wrong code. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> > > Exactly, I added that code to fix the issue in stable kernels that don't Then send backport for stable. > support the __free() macro, and then I removed it to use a safer > approach from now on. This is not correct approach. We work here on mainline and in mainline this is one logical change: fixing issue. Whether you fix issue with of_node_put or cleanup or by removing of_find_node_by_path() call, it does not matter. All of these are fixing the same, one issue. If you think about stable kernels, then work on backports, not inflate mainline kernel with multiple commits doing the same, creating artificial history. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 31/10/2024 12:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 31/10/2024 12:10, Javier Carrasco wrote: >> On 31/10/2024 12:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 30/10/2024 16:46, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>> Switch to a more robust approach by automating the node release when it >>>> goes out of scope, removing the need for explicit calls to >>>> of_node_put(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 8 ++------ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>> index 400c2663d6b0..a1153ada74d2 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>> @@ -541,23 +541,19 @@ static const struct bcm_subver_table bcm_usb_subver_table[] = { >>>> static const char *btbcm_get_board_name(struct device *dev) >>>> { >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >>>> - struct device_node *root; >>>> + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>> char *board_type; >>>> const char *tmp; >>>> >>>> - root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>> if (!root) >>>> return NULL; >>>> >>>> - if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) { >>>> - of_node_put(root); >>> >>> You just added this. Don't add code which is immediately removed. It's a >>> noop or wrong code. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >>> >> >> Exactly, I added that code to fix the issue in stable kernels that don't > > Then send backport for stable. > >> support the __free() macro, and then I removed it to use a safer >> approach from now on. > > This is not correct approach. We work here on mainline and in mainline > this is one logical change: fixing issue. Whether you fix issue with > of_node_put or cleanup or by removing of_find_node_by_path() call, it > does not matter. All of these are fixing the same, one issue. > I fixed an issue as one logical change, and tagged it for stable kernels so it can be automatically applied. Then a second logical change switched to the new approach, removing the old solution. If that happened with a few weeks in between, it would be ok, right? And no one would have to choose the fixes to backport for a given stable kernel. I have also had cases where the maintainer preferred my approach instead of fixing an old bug with a new facility, and the suggestion was splitting into two patches. But in the end I want to fix the issue in mainline kernel, so I will squash the patches and leave the backporting for the ones who might be interested in it, removing the stable tag. > If you think about stable kernels, then work on backports, not inflate > mainline kernel with multiple commits doing the same, creating > artificial history. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Thanks for your feedback and best regards, Javier Carrasco
On 31/10/2024 12:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 31/10/2024 12:10, Javier Carrasco wrote: >> On 31/10/2024 12:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 30/10/2024 16:46, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>> Switch to a more robust approach by automating the node release when it >>>> goes out of scope, removing the need for explicit calls to >>>> of_node_put(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 8 ++------ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>> index 400c2663d6b0..a1153ada74d2 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>> @@ -541,23 +541,19 @@ static const struct bcm_subver_table bcm_usb_subver_table[] = { >>>> static const char *btbcm_get_board_name(struct device *dev) >>>> { >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >>>> - struct device_node *root; >>>> + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>> char *board_type; >>>> const char *tmp; >>>> >>>> - root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>> if (!root) >>>> return NULL; >>>> >>>> - if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) { >>>> - of_node_put(root); >>> >>> You just added this. Don't add code which is immediately removed. It's a >>> noop or wrong code. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >>> >> >> Exactly, I added that code to fix the issue in stable kernels that don't > > Then send backport for stable. > >> support the __free() macro, and then I removed it to use a safer >> approach from now on. > > This is not correct approach. We work here on mainline and in mainline > this is one logical change: fixing issue. Whether you fix issue with > of_node_put or cleanup or by removing of_find_node_by_path() call, it > does not matter. All of these are fixing the same, one issue. > > If you think about stable kernels, then work on backports, not inflate > mainline kernel with multiple commits doing the same, creating > artificial history. > And to clarify even more: these stable backports are close to useless, because it does not matter for them. No impact, not much benefits, nothing improved for users/developers. There is no need to backport them, although of course there is no loss by doing so. Therefore entire dance affects mainline kernel without any real benefits for stable. Your split suggests you don't really know what this dropping reference is for. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 31/10/2024 12:29, Javier Carrasco wrote: > On 31/10/2024 12:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 31/10/2024 12:10, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>> On 31/10/2024 12:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 30/10/2024 16:46, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>>> Switch to a more robust approach by automating the node release when it >>>>> goes out of scope, removing the need for explicit calls to >>>>> of_node_put(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 8 ++------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>> index 400c2663d6b0..a1153ada74d2 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>> @@ -541,23 +541,19 @@ static const struct bcm_subver_table bcm_usb_subver_table[] = { >>>>> static const char *btbcm_get_board_name(struct device *dev) >>>>> { >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >>>>> - struct device_node *root; >>>>> + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>>> char *board_type; >>>>> const char *tmp; >>>>> >>>>> - root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>>> if (!root) >>>>> return NULL; >>>>> >>>>> - if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) { >>>>> - of_node_put(root); >>>> >>>> You just added this. Don't add code which is immediately removed. It's a >>>> noop or wrong code. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Krzysztof >>>> >>> >>> Exactly, I added that code to fix the issue in stable kernels that don't >> >> Then send backport for stable. >> >>> support the __free() macro, and then I removed it to use a safer >>> approach from now on. >> >> This is not correct approach. We work here on mainline and in mainline >> this is one logical change: fixing issue. Whether you fix issue with >> of_node_put or cleanup or by removing of_find_node_by_path() call, it >> does not matter. All of these are fixing the same, one issue. >> > > I fixed an issue as one logical change, and tagged it for stable kernels > so it can be automatically applied. Then a second logical change > switched to the new approach, removing the old solution. If that > happened with a few weeks in between, it would be ok, right? And no one > would have to choose the fixes to backport for a given stable kernel. > > I have also had cases where the maintainer preferred my approach instead > of fixing an old bug with a new facility, and the suggestion was > splitting into two patches. But this fix does not matter for stable kernels. Please describe any real, observable benefit by backporting it to old kernel which does not support cleanup.h. > > But in the end I want to fix the issue in mainline kernel, so I will > squash the patches and leave the backporting for the ones who might be > interested in it, removing the stable tag. Why removing stable tag? This is still fixing issue and if previously you wanted to indicate possible backport, then now as well. Stable kernel do support or, if some don't, might support cleanup.h. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 31/10/2024 12:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 31/10/2024 12:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 31/10/2024 12:10, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>> On 31/10/2024 12:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 30/10/2024 16:46, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>>> Switch to a more robust approach by automating the node release when it >>>>> goes out of scope, removing the need for explicit calls to >>>>> of_node_put(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 8 ++------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>> index 400c2663d6b0..a1153ada74d2 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>> @@ -541,23 +541,19 @@ static const struct bcm_subver_table bcm_usb_subver_table[] = { >>>>> static const char *btbcm_get_board_name(struct device *dev) >>>>> { >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >>>>> - struct device_node *root; >>>>> + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>>> char *board_type; >>>>> const char *tmp; >>>>> >>>>> - root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>>> if (!root) >>>>> return NULL; >>>>> >>>>> - if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) { >>>>> - of_node_put(root); >>>> >>>> You just added this. Don't add code which is immediately removed. It's a >>>> noop or wrong code. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Krzysztof >>>> >>> >>> Exactly, I added that code to fix the issue in stable kernels that don't >> >> Then send backport for stable. >> >>> support the __free() macro, and then I removed it to use a safer >>> approach from now on. >> >> This is not correct approach. We work here on mainline and in mainline >> this is one logical change: fixing issue. Whether you fix issue with >> of_node_put or cleanup or by removing of_find_node_by_path() call, it >> does not matter. All of these are fixing the same, one issue. >> >> If you think about stable kernels, then work on backports, not inflate >> mainline kernel with multiple commits doing the same, creating >> artificial history. >> > > And to clarify even more: these stable backports are close to useless, > because it does not matter for them. No impact, not much benefits, > nothing improved for users/developers. There is no need to backport > them, although of course there is no loss by doing so. Therefore entire > dance affects mainline kernel without any real benefits for stable. > > Your split suggests you don't really know what this dropping reference > is for. Such splits were suggested in other threads, and they came exactly for those reasons: they could not be applied to stable. That was not my first approach, which was just using __free() to fix the issue. I am not looking forward to inflating any history, as that's in the end more work for me. If a simple patch that adds the cleanup attribute is enough, that's awesome. I will go for that approach for all cases then, and use your explanation as a reference if I am asked to split the fix again. > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Thanks for your feedback and best regards, Javier Carrasco
On 31/10/2024 12:29, Javier Carrasco wrote: > On 31/10/2024 12:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 31/10/2024 12:10, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>> On 31/10/2024 12:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 30/10/2024 16:46, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>>> Switch to a more robust approach by automating the node release when it >>>>> goes out of scope, removing the need for explicit calls to >>>>> of_node_put(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 8 ++------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>> index 400c2663d6b0..a1153ada74d2 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>> @@ -541,23 +541,19 @@ static const struct bcm_subver_table bcm_usb_subver_table[] = { >>>>> static const char *btbcm_get_board_name(struct device *dev) >>>>> { >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >>>>> - struct device_node *root; >>>>> + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>>> char *board_type; >>>>> const char *tmp; >>>>> >>>>> - root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>>> if (!root) >>>>> return NULL; >>>>> >>>>> - if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) { >>>>> - of_node_put(root); >>>> >>>> You just added this. Don't add code which is immediately removed. It's a >>>> noop or wrong code. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Krzysztof >>>> >>> >>> Exactly, I added that code to fix the issue in stable kernels that don't >> >> Then send backport for stable. >> >>> support the __free() macro, and then I removed it to use a safer >>> approach from now on. >> >> This is not correct approach. We work here on mainline and in mainline >> this is one logical change: fixing issue. Whether you fix issue with >> of_node_put or cleanup or by removing of_find_node_by_path() call, it >> does not matter. All of these are fixing the same, one issue. >> > > I fixed an issue as one logical change, and tagged it for stable kernels > so it can be automatically applied. Then a second logical change > switched to the new approach, removing the old solution. If that > happened with a few weeks in between, it would be ok, right? And no one > would have to choose the fixes to backport for a given stable kernel. I did not address this. That's the same with every work in the kernel. You create a driver and you send it. It's one commit, for regular cases of drivers (not too big). You do not send two commits: 1. Add basic driver, built-in because supporting module is difficult. 2. Add some feature, like converting built-in to module. Now, because we all release early, release often you could release first built-in driver and then come later (*later*) and develop second patch improving it, e.g. converting to module. It's exactly the same here. You fix issue. If you want to split your contributions and release fixes early, sure, go on. It's different than you know and you have the code ready which makes the first fix totally obsolete. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 31/10/2024 12:41, Javier Carrasco wrote: > On 31/10/2024 12:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 31/10/2024 12:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 31/10/2024 12:10, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>> On 31/10/2024 12:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 30/10/2024 16:46, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>>>>> Switch to a more robust approach by automating the node release when it >>>>>> goes out of scope, removing the need for explicit calls to >>>>>> of_node_put(). >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 8 ++------ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>>> index 400c2663d6b0..a1153ada74d2 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c >>>>>> @@ -541,23 +541,19 @@ static const struct bcm_subver_table bcm_usb_subver_table[] = { >>>>>> static const char *btbcm_get_board_name(struct device *dev) >>>>>> { >>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >>>>>> - struct device_node *root; >>>>>> + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>>>> char *board_type; >>>>>> const char *tmp; >>>>>> >>>>>> - root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>>>>> if (!root) >>>>>> return NULL; >>>>>> >>>>>> - if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) { >>>>>> - of_node_put(root); >>>>> >>>>> You just added this. Don't add code which is immediately removed. It's a >>>>> noop or wrong code. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Krzysztof >>>>> >>>> >>>> Exactly, I added that code to fix the issue in stable kernels that don't >>> >>> Then send backport for stable. >>> >>>> support the __free() macro, and then I removed it to use a safer >>>> approach from now on. >>> >>> This is not correct approach. We work here on mainline and in mainline >>> this is one logical change: fixing issue. Whether you fix issue with >>> of_node_put or cleanup or by removing of_find_node_by_path() call, it >>> does not matter. All of these are fixing the same, one issue. >>> >>> If you think about stable kernels, then work on backports, not inflate >>> mainline kernel with multiple commits doing the same, creating >>> artificial history. >>> >> >> And to clarify even more: these stable backports are close to useless, >> because it does not matter for them. No impact, not much benefits, >> nothing improved for users/developers. There is no need to backport >> them, although of course there is no loss by doing so. Therefore entire >> dance affects mainline kernel without any real benefits for stable. >> >> Your split suggests you don't really know what this dropping reference >> is for. > > Such splits were suggested in other threads, and they came exactly for You mention it third time, but never provided a link. I tried to look briefly for it but failed. Can you share a lore link? > those reasons: they could not be applied to stable. That was not my > first approach, which was just using __free() to fix the issue. I am not > looking forward to inflating any history, as that's in the end more work > for me. > > If a simple patch that adds the cleanup attribute is enough, that's > awesome. I will go for that approach for all cases then, and use your > explanation as a reference if I am asked to split the fix again. If maintainer asks you to split trivial things like of_node_put() for simple patches, feel free to Cc me, so I can provide counter arguments. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c index 400c2663d6b0..a1153ada74d2 100644 --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c @@ -541,23 +541,19 @@ static const struct bcm_subver_table bcm_usb_subver_table[] = { static const char *btbcm_get_board_name(struct device *dev) { #ifdef CONFIG_OF - struct device_node *root; + struct device_node *root __free(device_node) = of_find_node_by_path("/"); char *board_type; const char *tmp; - root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); if (!root) return NULL; - if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) { - of_node_put(root); + if (of_property_read_string_index(root, "compatible", 0, &tmp)) return NULL; - } /* get rid of any '/' in the compatible string */ board_type = devm_kstrdup(dev, tmp, GFP_KERNEL); strreplace(board_type, '/', '-'); - of_node_put(root); return board_type; #else
Switch to a more robust approach by automating the node release when it goes out of scope, removing the need for explicit calls to of_node_put(). Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> --- drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 8 ++------ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)