linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: dw_mmc-rockchip: Fix the dw_mci_rockchip

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPDyKFo24z-n5g5w4SwugySAQGVLAp4j5TGX-SBRLbBNgxBnRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 12:22:02 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: dw_mmc-rockchip: Fix the dw_mci_rockchip_remove() function

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 at 19:35, Christophe JAILLET
<christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Having a something_get() function call in a remove function is unusual.
> A something_put() is more likely.
>
> More over the remove() function does not match the error handling of the
> probe().
>
> Fix the remove() function to match the error handling path of the probe.
>
> Fixes: f90142683f04 ("mmc: dw_mmc-rockchip: add runtime PM support")
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> ---
> /!\   SPECULATIVE   /!\
>
> I have a limited knowledge of the pm_ API.
> However, as said, the error handling path of the probe looks more logical
> to me.
>
> Moreover, some more or less similar code can be found in
> drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c. This patch also align this rockchip
> driver to the exynos's one.
>
> So review with care.
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-rockchip.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-rockchip.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-rockchip.c
> index 2a99f15f527f..b5893c738b4a 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-rockchip.c
> @@ -373,8 +373,8 @@ static int dw_mci_rockchip_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
>  static int dw_mci_rockchip_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> -       pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
>         pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> +       pm_runtime_set_suspended(&pdev->dev);
>         pm_runtime_put_noidle(&pdev->dev);
>
>         dw_mci_pltfm_remove(pdev);

dw_mci_pltfm_remove() needs to be called with an active/powered host
device. That's why the call to pm_runtime_get_sync() is done, so I
don't think there is anything wrong with the existing code.

Kind regards
Uffe