On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:38 AM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 02:29:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:45 PM Lucas Tanure > > <tanureal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > + cs35l41->reset_gpio = fwnode_gpiod_get_index(&adev->fwnode, "reset", cs35l41->index, > > > > Please, do not dereference fwnode pointers. > > Also, why can't you use the device instead of fwnode? > > We are doing "acpi_dev_put(adev);" a few lines above, so using adev in > the call to fwnode_gpiod_get_index() is technically use-after-free, > isn't it? Right, but I believe this is in response to the author and not to me. > Also, why can't we do > > cs35l41->reset_gpio = gpiod_get_index(acpi_dev, "reset", > cs35l41->index, > GPIOD_OUT_LOW); > > since acpi_dev is device structure corresponding to adev and we are > getting the rest of the properties from it? I remembered that I have also stumbled over that, but IIRC the point here is that ACPI tables might be broken (since the multi-instance device is a gray area to begin with). So we need clarification from Cirrus to understand what the cases they want to cover with this twisted code to get a GPIO. > I saw downthread that there was supposed to be a patch addressing > several issues raised by Andy, was it ever submitted? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
