On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 14:08 -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:54 AM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
> <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > When creating a consumer/supplier relationship between two devices,
> > make sure the supplier node is actually active. Otherwise this will
> > create a link relationship that will never be fulfilled. This, in the
> > worst case scenario, will hang the system during boot.
> >
> > Note that, in practice, the fact that a device-tree represented
> > consumer/supplier relationship isn't fulfilled will not prevent devices
> > from successfully probing.
> >
> > Fixes: a3e1d1a7f5fc ("of: property: Add functional dependency link from DT
> > bindings")
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > - Move availability check into the compatible search routine and bail
> > if device node disabled
> >
> > drivers/of/property.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/property.c b/drivers/of/property.c
> > index dc034eb45defd..14b6266dd054b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/property.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/property.c
> > @@ -1045,8 +1045,25 @@ static int of_link_to_phandle(struct device *dev,
> > struct device_node *sup_np,
> > * Find the device node that contains the supplier phandle. It may
> > be
> > * @sup_np or it may be an ancestor of @sup_np.
> > */
> > - while (sup_np && !of_find_property(sup_np, "compatible", NULL))
> > + while (sup_np) {
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Don't allow linking a device node as consumer of a
> > disabled
> > + * node.
> > + */
>
> Minor nit: I'd just say "Don't allow linking to a disabled supplier".
>
> > + if (!of_device_is_available(sup_np)) {
> > + dev_dbg(dev, "Not linking to %pOFP - Not
> > available\n",
> > + sup_np);
> > + of_node_put(sup_np);
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + }
>
> This if block looks very similar to the one right after the loop.
> Maybe there's a nice way to combine it?
>
> If you replace this if block with this, it'll end up with the same result.
> if (!of_device_is_available(sup_np)) {
> of_node_put(sup_np);
> sup_np = NULL;
> }
>
> of_get_next_parent() handles a NULL input properly. So that won't be a
> problem. And "No device" is a valid statement for both cases I think.
>
> > +
> > + if (of_find_property(sup_np, "compatible", NULL))
> > + break;
> > +
> > sup_np = of_get_next_parent(sup_np);
> > + }
> > +
> > if (!sup_np) {
> > dev_dbg(dev, "Not linking to %pOFP - No device\n", tmp_np);
> > return -ENODEV;
>
> However, not against this patch as is if Rob/Frank like it as is.
Agree with your suggestions, I'll send an v3.
Regards,
Nicolas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
