On 05-11-20, 11:24, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:04 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 03-11-20, 08:50, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > sorry, it didn't apply cleanly (which I guess is due to some other
> > > dependencies that need to be picked back to v5.4 product kernel), and
> > > due to some other things I'm in middle of debugging I didn't have time
> > > yet to switch to v5.10-rc or look at what else needs to
> > > cherry-picked..
> > >
> > > If you could, pushing a branch with this patch somewhere would be a
> > > bit easier to work with (ie. fetch && cherry-pick is easier to deal
> > > with than picking things from list)
> >
> > It has been in linux-next for a few days. Here is the HEAD to pick
> > from. There are few patches there since rc1.
> >
> > commit 203e29749cc0 ("opp: Allocate the OPP table outside of opp_table_lock")
> >
>
> sorry for the delay, with that cherry-picked, I'm getting a whole lot of:
Ahh, sorry about that and thanks for reporting it. Here is the fix:
diff --git a/drivers/opp/of.c b/drivers/opp/of.c
index c718092757d9..6b7f0066942d 100644
--- a/drivers/opp/of.c
+++ b/drivers/opp/of.c
@@ -112,8 +112,6 @@ static struct opp_table *_find_table_of_opp_np(struct device_node *opp_np)
struct opp_table *opp_table;
struct device_node *opp_table_np;
- lockdep_assert_held(&opp_table_lock);
-
opp_table_np = of_get_parent(opp_np);
if (!opp_table_np)
goto err;
@@ -121,12 +119,15 @@ static struct opp_table *_find_table_of_opp_np(struct device_node *opp_np)
/* It is safe to put the node now as all we need now is its address */
of_node_put(opp_table_np);
+ mutex_lock(&opp_table_lock);
list_for_each_entry(opp_table, &opp_tables, node) {
if (opp_table_np == opp_table->np) {
_get_opp_table_kref(opp_table);
+ mutex_unlock(&opp_table_lock);
return opp_table;
}
}
+ mutex_unlock(&opp_table_lock);
err:
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
--
viresh
