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 <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
index 5940d262374f..71450cca8e9f 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
@@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ static bool brcm_avs_is_firmware_loaded(struct private_data *priv)
 
 static unsigned int brcm_avs_cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
 	struct private_data *priv;
 
 	if (!policy)
@@ -488,8 +488,6 @@ static unsigned int brcm_avs_cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
 
 	priv = policy->driver_data;
 
-	cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
-
 	return brcm_avs_get_frequency(priv->base);
 }
 
-- 
2.25.1

On 27-08-25, 10:31, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
> 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 <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

Applied. Thanks.

-- 
viresh

在 2025/8/29 13:59, Viresh Kumar 写道:
> On 27-08-25, 10:31, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
>> 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 <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 4 +---
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> Applied. Thanks.
>

Thanks for applying the patch!

I’ve been thinking further — instead of using __free directly, maybe we 
could introduce a small macro wrapper around it to make the release 
scope more controllable and consistent.

Link: 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/6174bcc8-30f5-479b-bac6-f42eb1232b4d@kylinos.cn/

Do you think this would be a better approach, or should we just stick 
with the current use of __free?

On 29-08-25, 14:16, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
> Thanks for applying the patch!
> 
> I’ve been thinking further — instead of using __free directly, maybe we
> could introduce a small macro wrapper around it to make the release scope
> more controllable and consistent.
> 
> Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/6174bcc8-30f5-479b-bac6-f42eb1232b4d@kylinos.cn/
> 
> Do you think this would be a better approach, or should we just stick with
> the current use of __free?

Lets keep it simple for now and use __free directly. And keep this
similar with other parts of the kernel.

-- 
viresh

在 2025/8/29 14:26, Viresh Kumar 写道:
> On 29-08-25, 14:16, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
>> Thanks for applying the patch!
>>
>> I’ve been thinking further — instead of using __free directly, maybe we
>> could introduce a small macro wrapper around it to make the release scope
>> more controllable and consistent.
>>
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/6174bcc8-30f5-479b-bac6-f42eb1232b4d@kylinos.cn/
>>
>> Do you think this would be a better approach, or should we just stick with
>> the current use of __free?
> Lets keep it simple for now and use __free directly. And keep this
> similar with other parts of the kernel.


Got it. Thanks!