linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] clk: at91: sama7d65: add sama7d65 pmc 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: <d5d102c0-e4d8-4041-8899-6a732a514046@tuxon.dev>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2024 18:44:04 +0200
From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
 Ryan.Wanner@...rochip.com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com,
 alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
 arnd@...db.de
Cc: dharma.b@...rochip.com, mihai.sain@...rochip.com,
 romain.sioen@...rochip.com, varshini.rajendran@...rochip.com,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] clk: at91: sama7d65: add sama7d65 pmc driver



On 08.12.2024 18:35, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 06/12/2024 à 20:59, Ryan.Wanner@...rochip.com a écrit :
>> From: Ryan Wanner <Ryan.Wanner@...rochip.com>
>>
>> Add clock support for SAMA7D65 SoC.
>>
>> Increase maximum number of valid master clocks. The PMC for the SAMA7D65
>> requires 9 master clocks.
>>
>> Increase maximum amount of PLLs to 9 to support SAMA7D65 SoC PLL
>> requirements.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Wanner <Ryan.Wanner@...rochip.com>
> 
> ...
> 
>> +    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sama7d65_gck); i++) {
>> +        u8 num_parents = 4 + sama7d65_gck[i].pp_count;
>> +        struct clk_hw *tmp_parent_hws[8];
>> +        u32 *mux_table;
>> +
>> +        mux_table = kmalloc_array(num_parents, sizeof(*mux_table),
>> +                      GFP_KERNEL);
>> +        if (!mux_table)
>> +            goto err_free;
>> +
>> +        PMC_INIT_TABLE(mux_table, 4);
>> +        PMC_FILL_TABLE(&mux_table[4], sama7d65_gck[i].pp_mux_table,
>> +                   sama7d65_gck[i].pp_count);
>> +        for (j = 0; j < sama7d65_gck[i].pp_count; j++) {
>> +            u8 pll_id = sama7d65_gck[i].pp[j].pll_id;
>> +            u8 pll_compid = sama7d65_gck[i].pp[j].pll_compid;
>> +
>> +            tmp_parent_hws[j] = sama7d65_plls[pll_id][pll_compid].hw;
>> +        }
>> +        PMC_FILL_TABLE(&parent_hws[4], tmp_parent_hws,
>> +                   sama7d65_gck[i].pp_count);
>> +
>> +        hw = at91_clk_register_generated(regmap, &pmc_pcr_lock,
>> +                         &sama7d65_pcr_layout,
>> +                         sama7d65_gck[i].n, NULL,
>> +                         parent_hws, mux_table,
>> +                         num_parents,
>> +                         sama7d65_gck[i].id,
>> +                         &sama7d65_gck[i].r,
>> +                         sama7d65_gck[i].pp_chg_id);
>> +        if (IS_ERR(hw))
> 
> If we fail here, mux_table is not freed, because it is not stored yet in
> alloc_mem.

You're right! I missed that.