Hi Russell, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:00:31 +0000: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:47:37PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > So far the PHY ->xlate() callback was checking if the port was > > "invalid" before continuing, meaning that the port has not been used > > yet. This check is not correct as there is no opposite call to > > ->xlate() once the PHY is released by the user and the port will > > remain "valid" after the first phy_get()/phy_put() calls. Hence, if > > this driver is built as a module, inserted, removed and inserted > > again, the PHY will appear busy and the second probe will fail. > > > > To fix this, just drop the faulty check and instead verify that the > > port number is valid (ie. in the possible range). > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/phy/marvell/phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/marvell/phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy.c b/drivers/phy/marvell/phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy.c > > index 31b9a1c18345..a40b876ff214 100644 > > --- a/drivers/phy/marvell/phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy.c > > +++ b/drivers/phy/marvell/phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy.c > > @@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ static struct phy *mvebu_comphy_xlate(struct device *dev, > > return phy; > > > > lane = phy_get_drvdata(phy); > > - if (lane->port >= 0) > > - return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY); > > lane->port = args->args[0]; > > + if (lane->port >= MVEBU_COMPHY_PORTS) > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > Shouldn't we validate args->args[0] before doing anything? > I don't understand your point, there is a check on args->args[0] as we check its value (through lane->port) right after. What do you have in mind? Thanks, Miquèl
