Hi Niklas,
Niklas Söderlund wrote:
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
Here it is; this is the one I missed.
I spotted something else, too. Look at of_graph_get_port_parent(); it
appears to decrement the use count of the node passed to it, too:
struct device_node *of_graph_get_port_parent(struct device_node *node)
{
unsigned int depth;
/* Walk 3 levels up only if there is 'ports' node. */
for (depth = 3; depth && node; depth--) {
node = of_get_next_parent(node);
if (depth == 2 && of_node_cmp(node->name, "ports"))
break;
}
return node;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_graph_get_port_parent);
I think you'd need to of_node_get(node) first. I think it'd be good to
address this at the same time.
One could claim the original design principle has truly been adopted in
the fwnode variant of the function. X-)
On your original patch --- could you replace of_get_next_parent() by
of_get_parent()? In that case it won't drop the reference to the parent,
i.e. does what's required.
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
--
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
