On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:23:31AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Since of_get_cpu_node() increments refcount, the node should be put.
Urgh, I really hate the dt refcounting stuff.
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c | 11 ++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c
> index aef3605..18a71bc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ static void write_pen_release(u64 val)
> static int smp_spin_table_cpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> struct device_node *dn;
> + int ret;
>
> dn = of_get_cpu_node(cpu, NULL);
> if (!dn)
> @@ -60,15 +61,15 @@ static int smp_spin_table_cpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
> /*
> * Determine the address from which the CPU is polling.
> */
> - if (of_property_read_u64(dn, "cpu-release-addr",
> - &cpu_release_addr[cpu])) {
> + ret = of_property_read_u64(dn, "cpu-release-addr",
> + &cpu_release_addr[cpu]);
> + if (ret)
> pr_err("CPU %d: missing or invalid cpu-release-addr property\n",
> cpu);
>
> - return -1;
> - }
> + of_node_put(dn);
>
> - return 0;
> + return ret;
Looks ok to me. The slight change in return code should be harmless for
->cpu_init.
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
Will
--
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
