On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:57:07AM +0100, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > CC += devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gregkh
>
> You added linux@pengutronix instead of devicetree.
Well I substituted Sascha by kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on purpose, but
considered that too unimportant for the outer world :-) But I really
forgot devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Added now.
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:36:55AM +0100, Frans Klaver wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
> >> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:03:11AM +0100, Frans Klaver wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 8:46 AM, LABBE Corentin
> >> >> <clabbe.montjoie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > of_match_device could return NULL, and so cause a NULL pointer
> >> >> > dereference later.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did you actually run into this? It seems to me that this driver is
> >> >> only probed if and only if we have a match and that therefore
> >> >> of_match_device will always return a valid pointer (it is using the
> >> >> same match table). Am I missing something?
> >> >
> >> > Yes, you're missing something. The driver would probe for a dt snippet
> >> > like:
> >> >
> >> > mxc_nand {
> >> > compatible = "foobar";
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > In this case dev->of_node is non-NULL but of_match_device(mxcnd_dt_ids,
> >> > dev) is.
> >> >
> >> > (I didn't actually test this, so there is a chance I'm wrong here. And
> >> > if not I wonder if it is sensible at all to match the device name on
> >> > driver name for of-created platform devices.)
> >>
> >> Yea, looks like you're right. platform devices check a number of
> >> things to determine a match, among which is driver name if all else
> >> fails (platform.c, platform_match()).
> >
> > Maybe something like this would help to reduce surprises:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > index f80aaaf9f610..a9fc22c86552 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > @@ -840,8 +840,8 @@ static int platform_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
> > return !strcmp(pdev->driver_override, drv->name);
> >
> > /* Attempt an OF style match first */
> > - if (of_driver_match_device(dev, drv))
> > - return 1;
> > + if (pdev->dev.of_node)
> > + return of_driver_match_device(dev, drv);
> >
> > /* Then try ACPI style match */
> > if (acpi_driver_match_device(dev, drv))
>
> That looks sensible, yea. There is a chance that misbehaving DT nodes
> will fail after this change, of course.
Which is ok if this behaviour is considered a misbehave :-)
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
