linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] firmware: stratix10-svc: Add of_platform_default

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: <20250129180113.17219-1-mahesh.rao@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 02:01:13 +0800
From: Mahesh Rao <mahesh.rao@...el.com>
To: yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com
Cc: conor+dt@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	dinguyen@...nel.org,
	hao.wu@...el.com,
	krzk+dt@...nel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org,
	linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mahesh.rao@...era.com,
	mahesh.rao@...el.com,
	mdf@...nel.org,
	robh@...nel.org,
	trix@...hat.com,
	yilun.xu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] firmware: stratix10-svc: Add of_platform_default_populate()

Hi Yilun,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 16:28:55 +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > Add of_platform_default_populate() to stratix10-svc driver as the
> > firmware/svc node was moved out of soc.
> > This fixes the failed probing of child drivers of svc node.
> >
> > Fixes: 23c3ebed382a ("arm64: dts: socfpga: agilex: move firmware out
> > of soc node")

> > +	ret = of_platform_default_populate(dev_of_node(dev), NULL, dev);
> > +	if (ret < 0) {
> 
> 	if (ret)  is just fine.

ok ,I will make the change.

> 
> > +		of_platform_depopulate(dev);
> > +		goto err_unregister_fcs_dev;
> 
> You wanna destroy everything even if some child drivers work?

Currently, there is no requirement to retain the driver if a child component fails.
we will handle it if it is needed in the future.

> And do we need to do depopulation on driver remove?

I think yes , I have missed this. I will add depopulate in the remove callback().

> I'm actually a little confused how to handle populate() fail and depopulate().

I think this was a mistake on my side. I will make the change in next revision.

Best Regards,
Mahesh Rao