linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/6] net: lan966x: add the basic lan966x driver

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: <20211124081321.qbxhbbathz7nduuu@soft-dev3-1.localhost>
Date:   Wed, 24 Nov 2021 09:13:21 +0100
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To:     Denis Kirjanov <dkirjanov@...e.de>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        <linux@...linux.org.uk>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/6] net: lan966x: add the basic lan966x
 driver

The 11/23/2021 18:31, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> 
Hi Denis,

> > +static int lan966x_probe_port(struct lan966x *lan966x, u32 p,
> > +                           phy_interface_t phy_mode)
> > +{
> > +     struct lan966x_port *port;
> > +
> > +     if (p >= lan966x->num_phys_ports)
> > +             return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +     port = devm_kzalloc(lan966x->dev, sizeof(*port), GFP_KERNEL);
> ENOMEM?

I will add this, even though the next patch in the series will change this.

> > +
> > +     port->lan966x = lan966x;
> > +     port->chip_port = p;
> > +     port->pvid = PORT_PVID;
> > +     lan966x->ports[p] = port;
> > +
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> > +

...

> > +
> > +     /* go over the child nodes */
> > +     fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(ports, portnp) {
> > +             phy_interface_t phy_mode;
> > +             u32 p;
> > +
> > +             if (fwnode_property_read_u32(portnp, "reg", &p))
> > +                     continue;
> > +
> > +             phy_mode = fwnode_get_phy_mode(portnp);
> > +             err = lan966x_probe_port(lan966x, p, phy_mode);
> > +             if (err)
> > +                     return err;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     return 0;
> You have to properly free allocated resource in the error case

Yes, I will need to call, fwnode_handle_put(portnp), like it is done in
the next patch.

> > +}
> > +
> > +static int lan966x_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > 

-- 
/Horatiu