linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: layerscape: fix index passed to syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle

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: <a772a388-87b8-41e7-a142-2ba48eef2941@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:30:08 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>, Roy Zang <roy.zang@....com>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Cc: imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: layerscape: fix index passed to
 syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args

On 27/03/2025 16:19, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> The arg_count variable passed to the
> syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args() function represents the number of
> argument cells following the phandle. In this case, the number of
> arguments should be 1 instead of 2 since the dt property looks like
> below.
> 	fsl,pcie-scfg = <&scfg 0>;
> 
> Without this fix, layerscape-pcie fails with the following message on
> LS1043A:
> 
> [    0.157041] OF: /soc/pcie@...0000: phandle scfg@...0000 needs 2, found 1
> [    0.157050] layerscape-pcie 3500000.pcie: No syscfg phandle specified
> [    0.157053] layerscape-pcie 3500000.pcie: probe with driver layerscape-pcie failed with error -22
> 
> Fixes: 149fc35734e5 ("PCI: layerscape: Use syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args")

Uh, obviously, probably I thought the code is using
of_property_read_u32_index(), but that's of_property_read_u32_array().

Thanks.

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof