linux-kernel - [PATCH v4] 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181113193040.15181-1-d-gerlach@ti.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:30:40 -0600
From:   Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC:     <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Keerthy J <j-keerthy@...com>,
        Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v4] cpufreq: ti-cpufreq: Only register platform_device when supported

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 platform device.

Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>
---
v3->v4: Use platform_device_register_data rather than
	platform_device_register_resndata as we are only passing data.

	v3: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10681161/

 drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
index 3f0e2a14895a..22b53bf26817 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
@@ -201,19 +201,28 @@ 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);
+
+	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 = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
 	if (!match)
 		return -ENODEV;
 
@@ -290,7 +299,14 @@ static int ti_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 static int ti_cpufreq_init(void)
 {
-	platform_device_register_simple("ti-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
+	const struct of_device_id *match;
+
+	/* Check to ensure we are on a compatible platform */
+	match = ti_cpufreq_match_node();
+	if (match)
+		platform_device_register_data(NULL, "ti-cpufreq", -1, match,
+					      sizeof(*match));
+
 	return 0;
 }
 module_init(ti_cpufreq_init);
-- 
2.19.0