On 03/07/2020 09:15:20+0800, yukuai (C) wrote:
>
> On 2020/7/3 4:09, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 04/06/2020 20:33:01+0800, yu kuai wrote:
> > > if of_find_device_by_node() succeed, at91_pm_sram_init() doesn't have
> > > a corresponding put_device(). Thus add a jump target to fix the exception
> > > handling for this function implementation.
> > >
> > > Fixes: d2e467905596 ("ARM: at91: pm: use the mmio-sram pool to access
> > > SRAM")
> > > Signed-off-by: yu kuai <yuku...@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > > index 074bde64064e..2aab043441e8 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > > @@ -592,13 +592,13 @@ static void __init at91_pm_sram_init(void)
> > > sram_pool = gen_pool_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> >
> > Isn't the best solution to simply have put_device hereHi, Alexandre !
>
> I think put_device() is supposed to be called in the exception handling
> path.
>
> >
> > > if (!sram_pool) {
> > > pr_warn("%s: sram pool unavailable!\n", __func__);
> > > - return;
> > > + goto out_put_device;
> > > }
> > > sram_base = gen_pool_alloc(sram_pool,
> > > at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz);
> > > if (!sram_base) {
> > > pr_warn("%s: unable to alloc sram!\n", __func__);
> > > - return;
> > > + goto out_put_device;
> > > }
> > > sram_pbase = gen_pool_virt_to_phys(sram_pool, sram_base);
> > > @@ -606,12 +606,17 @@ static void __init at91_pm_sram_init(void)
> > > at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz,
> > > false);
> > > if (!at91_suspend_sram_fn) {
> > > pr_warn("SRAM: Could not map\n");
> > > - return;
> > > + goto out_put_device;
> > > }
> > > /* Copy the pm suspend handler to SRAM */
> > > at91_suspend_sram_fn = fncpy(at91_suspend_sram_fn,
> > > &at91_pm_suspend_in_sram,
> > > at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz);
>
> If nothing is wrong, maybe put_device shounld't be called?
>
I don't think this is the case but as the reference implementation
(imx6) is carrying the patch, I'm going to apply this one.
A better fix would have been to also factorize imx_suspend_alloc_ocram,
imx6q_suspend_init, socfpga_setup_ocram_self_refresh and
at91_pm_sram_init as they were all copied from pm-imx6.c
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
