Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:29 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... >> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c >> index 09692c9b32a7..d8e4534c0686 100644 >> --- a/drivers/of/base.c >> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c >> @@ -1190,6 +1190,10 @@ struct device_node *of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle handle) >> if (phandle_cache[masked_handle] && >> handle == phandle_cache[masked_handle]->phandle) >> np = phandle_cache[masked_handle]; >> + >> + /* If we find a detached node, remove it */ >> + if (of_node_check_flag(np, OF_DETACHED)) >> + np = phandle_cache[masked_handle] = NULL; > > I'm wondering if we should explicitly remove the node from the cache > when we set OF_DETACHED. Otherwise, it could be possible that the node > pointer has been freed already. Yeah good point. > Or maybe we need both? That's probably best, it could even be a WARN_ON() if we find one in of_find_node_by_phandle(). cheers
