>From: Nitka, Grzegorz <[email protected]>
>Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 8:31 PM
>
>Neither parent->dpll_refs nor pin->dpll_refs on its own is a correct
>iteration target at unregister time:
>
> - pin->dpll_refs includes DPLLs the child was registered against
> via a different parent or directly; blind unregister WARNs on
> the cookie miss in dpll_xa_ref_pin_del().
> - parent->dpll_refs reflects the parent's current attachments, not
> those at child-register time. Another driver may have (un)reg'd
> the parent against additional DPLLs in the meantime, so we miss
> registrations that exist and visit DPLLs that have none.
>
>Walk pin->dpll_refs and use dpll_pin_registration_find() to filter
>to entries whose cookie is this parent. Symmetric with
>dpll_pin_on_pin_register(), correct under any subsequent change to
>parent->dpll_refs.
>
>Fixes: 9431063ad323 ("dpll: core: Add DPLL framework base functions")
>Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Nitka <[email protected]>
>---
> drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c b/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c
>index 6dc7e93ece75..cea7e2be2cbc 100644
>--- a/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c
>+++ b/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c
>@@ -1031,14 +1031,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dpll_pin_on_pin_register);
> void dpll_pin_on_pin_unregister(struct dpll_pin *parent, struct dpll_pin
>*pin,
> const struct dpll_pin_ops *ops, void *priv)
> {
>+ struct dpll_pin_registration *reg;
> struct dpll_pin_ref *ref;
> unsigned long i;
>
> mutex_lock(&dpll_lock);
> dpll_pin_delete_ntf(pin);
Hey Grzegorz,
This line is redundant after 7/13?
> dpll_xa_ref_pin_del(&pin->parent_refs, parent, ops, priv, pin);
>- xa_for_each(&pin->dpll_refs, i, ref)
>+ xa_for_each(&pin->dpll_refs, i, ref) {
>+ reg = dpll_pin_registration_find(ref, ops, priv, parent);
>+ if (!reg)
>+ continue;
> __dpll_pin_unregister(ref->dpll, pin, ops, priv, parent);
>+ }
> mutex_unlock(&dpll_lock);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dpll_pin_on_pin_unregister);
>--
>2.39.3
