From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Claude Code Review Bot <claude-review@example.com>
To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com
Subject: Claude review: driver core: platform: remove software node on release()
Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 13:28:30 +1000
Message-ID: <review-patch5-20260512-swnode-remove-on-dev-unreg-v5-5-0035eff63812@oss.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20260512-swnode-remove-on-dev-unreg-v5-5-0035eff63812@oss.qualcomm.com>
References: <20260512-swnode-remove-on-dev-unreg-v5-0-0035eff63812@oss.qualcomm.com> <20260512-swnode-remove-on-dev-unreg-v5-5-0035eff63812@oss.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Patch Review

This is the core fix. Adding `device_remove_software_node(dev)` at the top =
of `platform_device_release()`:

```c
static void platform_device_release(struct device *dev)
{
    struct platform_object *pa =3D container_of(dev, struct platform_object,
                          pdev.dev);

    device_remove_software_node(dev);
    of_node_put(pa->pdev.dev.of_node);
    ...
```

This correctly handles the case where a swnode was added via `device_add_so=
ftware_node()` (the `.swnode` path). For managed swnodes (`.properties` pat=
h), `device_remove_software_node()` is a no-op because `software_node_notif=
y_remove()` already cleared the secondary fwnode during `device_del()`.

The extra `fwnode_handle_get()` for the primary-fwnode-is-software-node cas=
e is correct:

```c
if (is_software_node(pdevinfo->fwnode))
    fwnode_handle_get(pdevinfo->fwnode);
```

This prevents the new `device_remove_software_node()` in release from dropp=
ing the refcount of a pre-existing software node that was passed as the pri=
mary fwnode =E2=80=94 the caller owns that node's lifetime.

The commit message could be slightly clearer: "it will fails" should be "it=
 will fail".

No functional issues.

---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer