linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: 88pm800: Add clk provider driver for 88pm800 family of devices

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:46:53 +0530
From:	Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@...aro.org>
To:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	mturquette@...libre.com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: 88pm800: Add clk provider driver for 88pm800
 family of devices



On Wednesday 22 July 2015 12:16 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22.07.2015 15:27, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 22 July 2015 02:22 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 07/21/2015 12:36 PM, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 22 July 2015 12:40 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>> On 07/21/2015 04:07 AM, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>>>> +
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> +static int pm800_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    struct pm800_clk *pm800_clks = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>>>> +    int i;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    of_clk_del_provider(pm800_clks[0].clk_np);
>>>>>> +    /* Drop the reference obtained in pm800_clk_parse_dt */
>>>>>> +    of_node_put(pm800_clks[0].clk_np);
>>>>>
>>>>> This is odd. Why are we keeping the reference in the driver?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Honestly I do not have any good answer here. I have to admit that it is
>>>> getting carry forwarded from legacy driver.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well we shouldn't do things if we don't know why we're doing them.
>>> Krzysztof?
>
> I am really busy now so I am not following closely other discussions. I
> assume you are referring to clk-s2mps11.c. The of_node_put() matches
> of_get_child_by_name() when parsing DT.
>
> So why not of_node_put() just after parsing DT? Well, the result of
> of_get_child_by_name() is stored in state container for entire device
> life-cycle so we can use it in of_clk_del_provider().
>
> That was the idea behind it. If it looks incorrect I would be happy to
> see a patch :) .
>

About to respond, I digged more on kobject stuff and sequence in
of/dynamic.c and

I think you are right, we need of_node_put, as a result of
of_get_child_by_name().

Stephen,
Please let me know if you think otherwise.

Thanks,
Vaibhav
--
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/