Re: [PATCH] ARM: at91: pm: add missing put_device() call in at91_pm_sram_init()
On 2020/7/18 6:55, Alexandre Belloni wrote: 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 imx_suspend_alloc_ocram and imx6q_suspend_init are done areadly, socfpga_setup_ocram_self_refresh and at91_pm_sram_init still need to fix. Thanks for pointing out! Yu Kuai
Re: [PATCH] ARM: at91: pm: add missing put_device() call in at91_pm_sram_init()
On Thu, 4 Jun 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. Applied, thanks! [1/1] ARM: at91: pm: add missing put_device() call in at91_pm_sram_init() commit: f87a4f022c44e5b87e842a9f3e644fba87e8385f Best regards, -- Alexandre Belloni
Re: [PATCH] ARM: at91: pm: add missing put_device() call in at91_pm_sram_init()
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
> > > ---
> > > 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(>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,
> > > _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
Re: [PATCH] ARM: at91: pm: add missing put_device() call in at91_pm_sram_init()
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
---
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(>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,
_pm_suspend_in_sram, at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz);
If nothing is wrong, maybe put_device shounld't be called?
Thanks!
Yu Kuai
+ return;
+
+out_put_device:
+ put_device(>dev);
+ return;
}
static bool __init at91_is_pm_mode_active(int pm_mode)
--
2.25.4
Re: [PATCH] ARM: at91: pm: add missing put_device() call in at91_pm_sram_init()
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
> ---
> 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(>dev, NULL);
Isn't the best solution to simply have put_device here?
> 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,
> _pm_suspend_in_sram, at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz);
> + return;
> +
> +out_put_device:
> + put_device(>dev);
> + return;
> }
>
> static bool __init at91_is_pm_mode_active(int pm_mode)
> --
> 2.25.4
>
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Re: [PATCH] ARM: at91: pm: add missing put_device() call in at91_pm_sram_init()
ping?
On 2020/6/4 20:33, 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
---
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(>dev, NULL);
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,
_pm_suspend_in_sram, at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz);
+ return;
+
+out_put_device:
+ put_device(>dev);
+ return;
}
static bool __init at91_is_pm_mode_active(int pm_mode)
[PATCH] ARM: at91: pm: add missing put_device() call in at91_pm_sram_init()
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
---
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(>dev, NULL);
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,
_pm_suspend_in_sram, at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz);
+ return;
+
+out_put_device:
+ put_device(>dev);
+ return;
}
static bool __init at91_is_pm_mode_active(int pm_mode)
--
2.25.4
