Hi Sakari,
On 2017-08-21 16:30:17 +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Niklas,
>
> Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> > Using CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC=y uncovered an imbalance in the usecount of the
> > node being passed to of_fwnode_graph_get_port_parent(). Preserve the
> > usecount just like it is done in of_graph_get_port_parent().
>
> The of_fwnode_graph_get_port_parent() is called by
> fwnode_graph_get_port_parent() which obtains the port node through
> fwnode_get_parent(). If you take a reference here, calling
> fwnode_graph_get_port_parent() will end up incrementing the port node's use
> count. In other words, my understanding is that dropping the reference to
> the port node isn't a problem but intended behaviour here.
I'm not sure but I don't think the usecount will be incremented, without
this patch I think it's decremented by one instead. Lets look at the
code starting with fwnode_graph_get_port_parent().
struct fwnode_handle *
fwnode_graph_get_port_parent(struct fwnode_handle *endpoint)
{
struct fwnode_handle *port, *parent;
Increment usecount by 1
port = fwnode_get_parent(endpoint);
parent = fwnode_call_ptr_op(port, graph_get_port_parent);
Decrement usecount by 1
fwnode_handle_put(port); << Usecount -1
return parent;
}
Here it looks like the counting is correct and balanced. But without
this patch it's in this function 'fwnode_handle_put(port)' which
triggers the error which this patch aims to fix. Lets look at
of_fwnode_graph_get_port_parent() which in my case is what is called by
the fwnode_call_ptr_op().
static struct fwnode_handle *
of_fwnode_graph_get_port_parent(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
{
struct device_node *np;
Here in of_get_next_parent() the usecount is decremented by 1 and the
parents usecount is incremented by 1. So for our node node which passed
in from fwnode_graph_get_port_parent() (where it's named 'port') will be
decremented by 1.
/* Get the parent of the port */
np = of_get_next_parent(to_of_node(fwnode));
if (!np)
return NULL;
/* Is this the "ports" node? If not, it's the port parent. */
if (of_node_cmp(np->name, "ports"))
return of_fwnode_handle(np);
return of_fwnode_handle(of_get_next_parent(np));
}
So unless I miss something I do think this patch is needed to restore
balance to the usecount of the node being passed to
of_fwnode_graph_get_port_parent(). Or maybe I have misunderstood
something?
>
> I wonder if I miss something.
I also wonder what I missed :-)
>
> >
> > Fixes: 3b27d00e7b6d7c88 ("device property: Move fwnode graph ops to firmware specific locations")
> > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/of/property.c | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/property.c b/drivers/of/property.c
> > index 067f9fab7b77c794..637dcb4833e2af60 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/property.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/property.c
> > @@ -922,6 +922,12 @@ of_fwnode_graph_get_port_parent(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> > {
> > struct device_node *np;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Preserve usecount for passed in node as of_get_next_parent()
> > + * will do of_node_put() on it.
> > + */
> > + of_node_get(to_of_node(fwnode));
> > +
> > /* Get the parent of the port */
> > np = of_get_next_parent(to_of_node(fwnode));
> > if (!np)
> >
>
>
> --
> Sakari Ailus
> sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Regards,
Niklas Söderlund
--
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
