linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] gpio: adp5585: Add Analog Devices ADP5585 support

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]

Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 18:00:19 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>, 
	Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] gpio: adp5585: Add Analog Devices ADP5585 support

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 5:35 PM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 05:24:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 12:48 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:16:43AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:20 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 10:36:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

..

> > > > > > > +   device_set_of_node_from_dev(dev, dev->parent);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why not device_set_node()?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because device_set_of_node_from_dev() is meant for this exact use case,
> > > > > where the same node is used for multiple devices. It also puts any
> > > > > previous dev->of_node, ensuring proper refcounting when devices are
> > > > > unbound and rebound, without being deleted.
> > > >
> > > > When will the refcount be dropped (in case of removal of this device)?
> > > > Or you mean it shouldn't?
> > >
> > > Any refcount taken on the OF node needs to be dropped. The device core
> > > only drops the refcount when the device is being deleted, not when
> > > there's an unbind-rebind cycle without deletion of the device (as
> > > happens for instance when the module is unloaded and reloaded).
> >
> > Under "device" you meant the real hardware, as Linux device (instance
> > of the struct device object) is being rebuilt AFAIK)?
>
> I mean struct device. The driver core will drop the reference in
> platform_device_release(), called when the last reference to the
> platform device is released, just before freeing the platform_device
> instance. This happens after the device is removed from the system (e.g.
> hot-unplug), but not when a device is unbound from a driver and rebound
> (e.g. module unload and reload).

This is something I need to refresh in my memory. Any pointers (the
links to the exact code lines are also okay) where I can find the
proof of what you are saying. (It's not that I untrust you, it's just
that I take my time on studying it.)

> > > This has
> > > to be handled by the driver. device_set_of_node_from_dev() handles it.
> >
> > But why do you need to keep a parent node reference bumped?
> > Only very few drivers in the kernel use this API and I believe either

s/very/a/ (sorry for the confusion)

> > nobody knows what they are doing and you are right, or you are doing
> > something which is not needed.
>
> I need to set the of_node and fwnode fields of struct device to enable
> OF-based lookups of GPIOs and PWMs. The of_node field is meant to be
> populated by the driver core when the device is created, with a
> reference to the OF node. When populated directly by driver, this needs
> to be taken into account, and drivers need to ensure the reference will
> be released correctly. device_set_of_node_from_dev() is meant for that.

What you are doing is sharing the parent node with the child, but at
the same time you bump the parent's reference count. As this is a
child of MFD I don't think you need this as MFD already takes care of
it via parent -> child natural dependencies. Is it incorrect
understanding?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko