Hi, On 06/18/2014 09:11 AM, Boris BREZILLON wrote: > > On 17/06/2014 22:44, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 09:38:40AM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote: >>> The init_data and of_node fields of the axp2xx_matches tables are filled >>> at each device probe by the axp20x_regulator_parse_dt function (which then >>> calls the of_regulator_match function). >>> This means we can probe a new device and consider data initialized during >>> the probe of another device as valid. >>> >>> Reset init_data and of_node field to NULL before each probe in order to >>> avoid this kind of issue. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/regulator/axp20x-regulator.c | 9 +++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/axp20x-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/axp20x-regulator.c >>> index 7a30f49..d42bf6d 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/regulator/axp20x-regulator.c >>> +++ b/drivers/regulator/axp20x-regulator.c >>> @@ -324,6 +324,15 @@ static int axp20x_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> nregulators = AXP20X_REG_ID_MAX; >>> } >>> >>> + /* >>> + * Reset matches table (this table might have been modified by a >>> + * previous AXP2xx device probe). >>> + */ >>> + for (i = 0; i < nmatches; i++) { >>> + matches[i].init_data = NULL; >>> + matches[i].of_node = NULL; >>> + } >>> + >> That looks rather hackish, especially since we've never been in such a >> case yet, since we have a single PMIC in our system. > > Even if something is unlikely to happen, it doesn't mean it's impossible. > I'm pretty sure there are (or will be) some systems containing several > identical PMICs in the wild, and fixing this possible bug now prevents > us (or other developers) from having a big headache debugging this in > the future. If you're really worried about this, you should also be worried about 2 probes running at the same time racing against each other (I know the bus level code will not do that now, but what about the future). If you cannot treat / use the global struct as const, then you really should have a local copy, and const-ify the global version and use it as a template to initialize the local copy. > BTW, what is hackish in this code ? See above, changing a global struct, and then re-initializing it on the next probe just is not pretty. TBH this raised my eyebrows the first time you posted it already, but I decided to let it be. But since we're discussing this now anyways I have to agree with Maxime. Regards, Hans -- 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