[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210714100422.000051a2@Huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:04:22 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
frank zago <frank@...o.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 073/593] iio: light: tcs3472: do not free
unallocated IRQ
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 23:31:28 +0200
Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > commit 7cd04c863f9e1655d607705455e7714f24451984 upstream.
> >
> > Allocating an IRQ is conditional to the IRQ existence, but freeing it
> > was not. If no IRQ was allocate, the driver would still try to free
> > IRQ 0. Add the missing checks.
> >
> > This fixes the following trace when the driver is removed:
> >
> > [ 100.667788] Trying to free already-free IRQ 0
>
> AFAICT this will need more fixing, because IRQ == 0 is a valid
> IRQ. NO_IRQ (aka -1) should be safe to use for "no irq assigned".
>
I thought we had long put this to bed. IRQ == 0 is not a valid irq number.
If there is an error in parsing DT (e.g. no irq specified) it returns 0
not NO_IRQ. Naturally irq chips can have a 0, but that's pre translation to
virtual IRQ space.
Many years ago, ARM did have 0 as as valid IRQ, but that got cleaned up
to make it easier to do generic code like this.
Jonathan
> Best regards,
> Pavel
>
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/light/tcs3472.c
> > @@ -531,7 +531,8 @@ static int tcs3472_probe(struct i2c_clie
> > return 0;
> >
> > free_irq:
> > - free_irq(client->irq, indio_dev);
> > + if (client->irq)
> > + free_irq(client->irq, indio_dev);
> > buffer_cleanup:
> > iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(indio_dev);
> > return ret;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists