It's looking fairly close. Thanks for keeping up with the review
comments.
On 01/20, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> index e867d6a..f241e27 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> @@ -2143,6 +2280,10 @@ struct clk *__clk_register(struct device *dev, struct
> clk_hw *hw)
> else
> clk->owner = NULL;
>
> + INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&clk->clks);
> +
> + hw->clk = __clk_create_clk(hw, NULL, NULL);
> +
> ret = __clk_init(dev, hw->clk);
> if (ret)
> return ERR_PTR(ret);
Don't we need to __clk_free_clk() here too?
> @@ -2151,6 +2292,19 @@ struct clk *__clk_register(struct device *dev, struct
> clk_hw *hw)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__clk_register);
>
> +static void __clk_free_clk(struct clk *clk)
> +{
> + struct clk_core *core = clk->core;
> +
> + clk_prepare_lock();
> + hlist_del(&clk->child_node);
> + clk_prepare_unlock();
> +
> + kfree(clk);
> +
> + clk_core_set_rate(core, core->req_rate);
Is it safe to call this during clock registration? I hope that it
will just bail out and do nothing because core->rate ==
core->req_rate. Maybe we can avoid this given my next comment
below.
> +}
> +
> /**
> * clk_register - allocate a new clock, register it and return an opaque
> cookie
> * @dev: device that is registering this clock
> @@ -2210,12 +2364,14 @@ struct clk *clk_register(struct device *dev, struct
> clk_hw *hw)
> }
> }
>
> + INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&clk->clks);
> +
> hw->clk = __clk_create_clk(hw, NULL, NULL);
> ret = __clk_init(dev, hw->clk);
> if (!ret)
> return hw->clk;
>
> - kfree(hw->clk);
> + __clk_free_clk(hw->clk);
> fail_parent_names_copy:
> while (--i >= 0)
> kfree(clk->parent_names[i]);
> @@ -2421,7 +2577,7 @@ void __clk_put(struct clk *clk)
> return;
>
> clk_core_put(clk->core);
> - kfree(clk);
> + __clk_free_clk(clk);
This doesn't look right. First we drop the core reference here
with clk_core_put() and then we call __clk_free_clk() which will
go and call clk_core_set_rate() on the clk->core which may or may
not exist anymore. I'd think we want to do these steps:
1. Unlink clk from clks list
2. Recalculate rate and set if changed
3. Drop kref on core with clk_core_put()
4. kfree the clk
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
