linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ti-cpufreq: Only register platform

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]

Message-ID: <20180823075058.GR14967@localhost>
Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:50:58 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Keerthy J <j-keerthy@...com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ti-cpufreq: Only register platform_device when
 supported

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 09:44:32PM -0500, Dave Gerlach wrote:
> Currently the ti-cpufreq driver blindly registers a 'ti-cpufreq' to force
> the driver to probe on any platforms where the driver is built in.
> However, this should only happen on platforms that actually can make use
> of the driver. There is already functionality in place to match the
> SoC compatible so let's factor this out into a separate call and
> make sure we find a match before creating the ti-cpufreq driver device.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> index 3f0e2a14895a..541fdcf17b57 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> @@ -201,19 +201,31 @@ static const struct of_device_id ti_cpufreq_of_match[] = {
>  	{},
>  };
>  
> +static const struct of_device_id *ti_cpufreq_match_node(void)
> +{
> +	struct device_node *np;
> +	const struct of_device_id *match;
> +
> +	np = of_find_node_by_path("/");
> +	match = of_match_node(ti_cpufreq_of_match, np);
> +	of_node_put(np);
> +
> +	if (!match)
> +		return NULL;
> +	else
> +		return match;

Shouldn't this just be "return match"?

> +}
> +
>  static int ti_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
>  	u32 version[VERSION_COUNT];
> -	struct device_node *np;
>  	const struct of_device_id *match;
>  	struct opp_table *ti_opp_table;
>  	struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data;
>  	const char * const reg_names[] = {"vdd", "vbb"};
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	np = of_find_node_by_path("/");
> -	match = of_match_node(ti_cpufreq_of_match, np);
> -	of_node_put(np);
> +	match = ti_cpufreq_match_node();
>  	if (!match)
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  
> @@ -290,7 +302,10 @@ static int ti_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  static int ti_cpufreq_init(void)
>  {
> -	platform_device_register_simple("ti-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
> +	/* Check to ensure we are on a compatible platform */
> +	if (ti_cpufreq_match_node())
> +		platform_device_register_simple("ti-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  module_init(ti_cpufreq_init);

With that fixed, feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>

Johan