[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <510f14c9-fc3b-734c-53ff-cbf4a7579e32@electromag.com.au>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:37:24 +0800
From: Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: em: remove the gpiochip before removing the irq
domain
G'day Bartosz,
One comment below
On 10/07/2019 17:08, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
>
> In commit 8764c4ca5049 ("gpio: em: use the managed version of
> gpiochip_add_data()") we implicitly altered the ordering of resource
> freeing: since gpiochip_remove() calls gpiochip_irqchip_remove()
> internally, we now can potentially use the irq_domain after it was
> destroyed in the remove() callback (as devm resources are freed after
> remove() has returned).
>
> Use devm_add_action() to keep the ordering right and entirely kill
> the remove() callback in the driver.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> Fixes: 8764c4ca5049 ("gpio: em: use the managed version of gpiochip_add_data()")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c
> index b6af705a4e5f..c88028ac66f2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c
> @@ -259,6 +259,13 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops em_gio_irq_domain_ops = {
> .xlate = irq_domain_xlate_twocell,
> };
>
> +static void em_gio_irq_domain_remove(void *data)
> +{
> + struct irq_domain *domain = data;
> +
> + irq_domain_remove(domain);
> +}
> +
> static int em_gio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct em_gio_priv *p;
> @@ -333,39 +340,32 @@ static int em_gio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return -ENXIO;
> }
>
> + ret = devm_add_action(&pdev->dev,
> + em_gio_irq_domain_remove, p->irq_domain);
Could devm_add_action_or_reset be used?
> + if (ret) {
> + irq_domain_remove(p->irq_domain);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> if (devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq[0]->start,
> em_gio_irq_handler, 0, name, p)) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to request low IRQ\n");
> - ret = -ENOENT;
> - goto err1;
> + return -ENOENT;
> }
>
> if (devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq[1]->start,
> em_gio_irq_handler, 0, name, p)) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to request high IRQ\n");
> - ret = -ENOENT;
> - goto err1;
> + return -ENOENT;
> }
>
> ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, gpio_chip, p);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to add GPIO controller\n");
> - goto err1;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> return 0;
> -
> -err1:
> - irq_domain_remove(p->irq_domain);
> - return ret;
> -}
> -
> -static int em_gio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> -{
> - struct em_gio_priv *p = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> -
> - irq_domain_remove(p->irq_domain);
> - return 0;
> }
>
> static const struct of_device_id em_gio_dt_ids[] = {
> @@ -376,7 +376,6 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, em_gio_dt_ids);
>
> static struct platform_driver em_gio_device_driver = {
> .probe = em_gio_probe,
> - .remove = em_gio_remove,
> .driver = {
> .name = "em_gio",
> .of_match_table = em_gio_dt_ids,
>
--
Regards
Phil Reid
Powered by blists - more mailing lists