[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140528084344.GB4285@norris-Latitude-E6410>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 01:43:44 -0700
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/27] mtd: nand: introduce function to fix a common bug
in most nand-drivers not showing a device in sysfs
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:12:26AM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> --- a/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include <linux/uio.h>
> #include <linux/notifier.h>
> -#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>
> #include <mtd/mtd-abi.h>
>
> @@ -366,6 +366,15 @@ static inline int mtd_can_have_bb(const struct mtd_info *mtd)
> struct mtd_partition;
> struct mtd_part_parser_data;
>
> +static inline void mtd_setup_common_members(struct mtd_info *mtd, void *priv,
> + struct platform_device *pdev)
Thanks for the diligence on catching these issues, but I'm not sure this
helper function is fully the correct approach here.
> +{
> + mtd->priv = priv;
I don't think you should hide this one here. It will be quite obvious if
a driver didn't stash its private data but tries to access it later. Are
there any drivers that missed this?
> + mtd->owner = pdev->dev.driver->owner;
> + mtd->dev.parent = &pdev->dev;
> + mtd->name = pdev->dev.driver->name;
I think this is a little dangerous. You're potentially clobbering the
name that a driver already chose here. And why did you pick to use the
driver name? This gives non-unique names if there is more than one
device instantiated for a driver. That's why some drivers already use
the device name, not the driver name:
mtd->name = dev_name(&pev->dev);
And in fact, if any drivers are missing mtd->name, perhaps it's best to
just modify the MTD registration to give them a default:
if (!mtd->name)
mtd->name = dev_name(&pdev->dev);
> +}
BTW, nothing in this function actually makes sense to require a
platform_device, does it? And it's possible to have non-platform drivers
that want to do basic MTD initialization. So (if we still keep this
helper function at all), I'd recommend just a 'struct device *dev'
parameter.
> +
> extern int mtd_device_parse_register(struct mtd_info *mtd,
> const char * const *part_probe_types,
> struct mtd_part_parser_data *parser_data,
How about we rethink the "helper" approach, and instead just do
validation in the core code? This would cover most of the important
parts of your helper, I think:
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
index d201feeb3ca6..39ba5812a5a3 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
@@ -397,6 +397,11 @@ int add_mtd_device(struct mtd_info *mtd)
if (device_register(&mtd->dev) != 0)
goto fail_added;
+ if (mtd->dev.parent)
+ mtd->owner = mtd->dev.parent->driver->owner;
+ else
+ WARN_ON(1);
+
if (MTD_DEVT(i))
device_create(&mtd_class, mtd->dev.parent,
MTD_DEVT(i) + 1,
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
index 1ca9aec141ff..9869bbef50cf 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
@@ -370,7 +370,6 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct mtd_info *master,
slave->mtd.subpage_sft = master->subpage_sft;
slave->mtd.name = name;
- slave->mtd.owner = master->owner;
slave->mtd.backing_dev_info = master->backing_dev_info;
/* NOTE: we don't arrange MTDs as a tree; it'd be error-prone
--
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists