linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 04/13] slimbus: core: Add slim controllers support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:47:58 +0000
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc:     broonie@...nel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        sdharia@...eaurora.org, bp@...e.de, poeschel@...onage.de,
        treding@...dia.com, andreas.noever@...il.com, alan@...ux.intel.com,
        mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, daniel@...ll.ch, jkosina@...e.cz,
        sharon.dvir1@...l.huji.ac.il, joe@...ches.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        james.hogan@...tec.com, michael.opdenacker@...e-electrons.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/13] slimbus: core: Add slim controllers support



On 17/11/17 08:13, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:12:22AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:29:35PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>> thanks for the comments.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16/11/17 16:42, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:10:34PM +0000,srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +static void slim_dev_release(struct device *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	struct slim_device *sbdev = to_slim_device(dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	put_device(sbdev->ctrl->dev);
>>>> which device would that be?
>>> This is controller device
>>>
>>>>> +static int slim_add_device(struct slim_controller *ctrl,
>>>>> +			   struct slim_device *sbdev,
>>>>> +			   struct device_node *node)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	sbdev->dev.bus = &slimbus_bus;
>>>>> +	sbdev->dev.parent = ctrl->dev;
>>>>> +	sbdev->dev.release = slim_dev_release;
>>>>> +	sbdev->dev.driver = NULL;
>>>>> +	sbdev->ctrl = ctrl;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	dev_set_name(&sbdev->dev, "%x:%x:%x:%x",
>>>>> +				  sbdev->e_addr.manf_id,
>>>>> +				  sbdev->e_addr.prod_code,
>>>>> +				  sbdev->e_addr.dev_index,
>>>>> +				  sbdev->e_addr.instance);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	get_device(ctrl->dev);
>>>> is this controller device and you ensuring it doesnt go away while you have
>>>> slaves on it?
>>> Yes.
>> I thought since you are marking ctrl->dev as parent, the device core should
>> ensure that parent doesn't go off when you have child device?
>>
>> Greg, is that understanding correct, if so we may not need these calls.
> That understanding should be correct, as the reference count is
> incremented on the parent when a child is added.
> 
> It would be trivial for this to be tested, and yes, I am pretty sure you
> don't need this call.
> 

Thanks for suggestion, I will remove this in next version.


thanks,
srini