On 06/26/2013 10:19 AM, jonghwa3....@samsung.com wrote: > Hi, > On 2013년 06월 25일 22:34, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3....@samsung.com >> <mailto:jonghwa3....@samsung.com>> wrote: >> >> This patch prevents NULL pointer error cauesed by unregistering >> unregistered >> exton notifier block. At the probing time of charger manager, it tries to >> remove extcon notifier block when it fails to initialize them. It has to >> be >> applied for only registered one. Otherwise, it'd make kernel panic. To >> make it >> work right, it checks extcon_specific_cable_nb's extcon_dev node. If >> extcon >> cable notifier block was registered successfully, it has proper >> extcon_dev >> pointer if not so it has NULL pointer. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3....@samsung.com >> <mailto:jonghwa3....@samsung.com>> >> Signed-off-by: Myungjoo Ham <myungjoo....@samsung.com >> <mailto:myungjoo....@samsung.com>> >> --- >> drivers/power/charger-manager.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/power/charger-manager.c >> b/drivers/power/charger-manager.c >> index 7d1bcde..c55a7dc 100644 >> --- a/drivers/power/charger-manager.c >> +++ b/drivers/power/charger-manager.c >> @@ -1666,7 +1666,9 @@ err_reg_extcon: >> charger = &desc->charger_regulators[i]; >> for (j = 0; j < charger->num_cables; j++) { >> struct charger_cable *cable = >> &charger->cables[j]; >> - extcon_unregister_interest(&cable->extcon_dev); >> + /* Remove notifier block if only edev exists */ >> + if (cable->extcon_dev.edev) >> + >> extcon_unregister_interest(&cable->extcon_dev); >> } >> >> regulator_put(desc->charger_regulators[i].consumer); >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 >> >> >> The charger-manager.c call extcon_unregister_interest() in >> charger_manager_remove() function. >> So, you should to fix it on charger_manager_remove() to remove NULL pointer >> error. >> > > > When .remove() callback function is called, there is no unregistered cable > notifier block. Because all extcon notifier block would be registered at > probing > time, and if it is failed the probing can't be achieved. So I think it doesn't > need to fix .remove() callback function as like above. > > Thank you for reviewing. > > Best regards, > Jonghwa. > > >> Acked-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.c...@samsung.com <mailto:cw00.c...@samsung.com>> >> >> Thanks, >> Chanwoo Choi >> >
OK, I agree your opinion. Acked-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.c...@samsung.com> Thanks, Chanwoo Choi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
