On 20/02/2024 13:28, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > When llcc driver is enabled and llcc device is not > physically there on the SoC, client can get > -EPROBE_DEFER on calling llcc_slice_getd() and it > is possible they defer forever. Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission process (neither too early nor over the limit): https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597 > > Let's add a check device availabilty and set the > appropriate applicable error in drv_data. > > Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c > index 4ca88eaebf06..cb336b183bba 100644 > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c > @@ -769,6 +769,27 @@ static const struct qcom_sct_config x1e80100_cfgs = { > }; > > static struct llcc_drv_data *drv_data = (void *) -EPROBE_DEFER; > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(dev_avail); > + > +static bool is_llcc_device_available(void) > +{ > + static struct llcc_drv_data *ptr; > + > + mutex_lock(&dev_avail); > + if (!ptr) { > + struct device_node *node; > + > + node = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "system-cache-controller"); Why do you look names by name? This create undocumented ABI. NAK (also for any future uses of such of_find_node_by_name()). Best regards, Krzysztof
