linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 12/16] pinctrl: starfive: Add pinctrl driver for StarFive SoCs

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: <CANBLGcxHLQZygX9CHsXK4aYS9m4VE5OnLNROOmvP1ps5UP-xAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:02:43 +0200
From:   Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        Sagar Kadam <sagar.kadam@...ive.com>,
        Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        Matteo Croce <mcroce@...rosoft.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Huan Feng <huan.feng@...rfivetech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 12/16] pinctrl: starfive: Add pinctrl driver for
 StarFive SoCs

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 18:29, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:23 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:56 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:48, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:35 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 19:03, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:43 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > > +       ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> > > > > > > +       if (ret) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +               reset_control_deassert(rst);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Use devm_add_action_or_reset().
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how that is better.
> > > >
> > > > Pity. The rule of thumb is to either try to use devm_*() everywhere in
> > > > the probe, or don't use it at all. Above is the more-or-less standard
> > > > pattern where devn_add_action_or_reset() is being used in the entire
> > > > kernel.
> > > >
> > > > > Then I'd first need to call that and
> > > > > check for errors, but just on the line below enabling the clock the
> > > > > reset line is deasserted anyway, so then the action isn't needed any
> > > > > longer. So that 3 lines of code for devm_add_action_or_reset +
> > > > > lingering unneeded action or code to remove it again vs. just the line
> > > > > above.
> > > >
> > > > Then don't use devm_*() at all. What's the point?
> > >
> > > I'm confused. So you wan't an unneeded action to linger because the
> > > probe function temporarily asserts reset for 3 lines of code?
> >
> > I;m talking about clk_prepare_enable().
>
> Having a second look I found even problematic error paths because of
> mixing devm_*() with non-devm_*() calls, which only assures me that
> your ->probe() error path is broken and should be revisited.

So do you want to expand on that now or should I send v2 first?