On 12/16/25 2:28 PM, Loktionov, Aleksandr wrote:
-----Original Message-----
...
+ /* Register rclk pin */
+ pin = &pf->dplls.rclk;
+ dpll_pin_on_pin_unregister(parent->pin, pin->pin,
+ &ice_dpll_rclk_ops, pin);
+
+ /* Drop fwnode pin reference */
+ dpll_pin_put(parent->pin, &parent->tracker);
+ parent->pin = NULL;
+ break;
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
+out:
+ kfree(work);
It looks like you free the embedded work_struct pointer instead of the
allocated ice_dpll_pin_work container @ice_dpll_pin_notify().
Isn't it?
You are right, will fix this in non-RFC submission.
+}
+
...
+static int ice_dpll_init_info_e825c(struct ice_pf *pf)
+{
+ struct ice_dplls *d = &pf->dplls;
+ int ret = 0;
+ int i;
+
+ d->clock_id = ice_generate_clock_id(pf);
+ d->num_inputs = ICE_SYNCE_CLK_NUM;
+
+ d->inputs = kcalloc(d->num_inputs, sizeof(*d->inputs),
GFP_KERNEL);
It looks like for E825-C the allocated pin info (d->inputs and related fields)
is never freed:
error paths in ice_dpll_init_info_e825c() return after kcalloc() without
cleanup, and ice_dpll_deinit() explicitly skips ice_dpll_deinit_info() for this
MAC.
You are right, this is Arek's code part. I don't see any problem to call
ice_dpll_deinit_info() also for this MAC (.outputs, .pps.input_prio and
.eec.input_prio should be NULL for e825c so it is safe to kfree them).
Will add correct cleanup into ice_dpll_init_info_e825c() and call
ice_dpll_deinit_info() also for this MAC.
With the best regards
Alex
+ if (!d->inputs)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ ret = ice_get_cgu_rclk_pin_info(&pf->hw, &d->base_rclk_idx,
+ &pf->dplls.rclk.num_parents);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < pf->dplls.rclk.num_parents; i++)
+ pf->dplls.rclk.parent_idx[i] = d->base_rclk_idx + i;
+
+ if (ice_pf_src_tmr_owned(pf)) {
+ d->base_1588_idx = ICE_E825_1588_BASE_IDX;
+ pf->dplls.pin_1588.num_parents = pf-
dplls.rclk.num_parents;
+ for (i = 0; i < pf->dplls.pin_1588.num_parents; i++)
+ pf->dplls.pin_1588.parent_idx[i] = d-
base_1588_idx + i;
+ }
+ ret = ice_dpll_init_pins_info(pf,
ICE_DPLL_PIN_TYPE_RCLK_INPUT);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ dev_dbg(ice_pf_to_dev(pf),
+ "%s - success, inputs: %u, outputs: %u, rclk-parents:
%u, pin_1588-parents: %u\n",
+ __func__, d->num_inputs, d->num_outputs, d-
rclk.num_parents,
+ d->pin_1588.num_parents);
+ return 0;
+}
+
...
+int ice_tspll_bypass_mux_active_e825c(struct ice_hw *hw, u8 port,
bool *active,
+ enum ice_synce_clk output)
+{
+ u8 active_clk;
+ u32 val;
+
+ switch (output) {
+ case ICE_SYNCE_CLK0:
+ ice_read_cgu_reg(hw, ICE_CGU_R10, &val);
+ active_clk = FIELD_GET(ICE_CGU_R10_SYNCE_S_REF_CLK,
val);
+ break;
+ case ICE_SYNCE_CLK1:
+ ice_read_cgu_reg(hw, ICE_CGU_R11, &val);
+ active_clk = FIELD_GET(ICE_CGU_R11_SYNCE_S_BYP_CLK,
val);
+ break;
+ default:
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
ice_read_cgu_reg() return codes are ignored, can you explain why?
Arek's code... will fix in the non-RFC submission.
Thanks a lot Alex for your sharp eyes. ;-)
Ivan
