Hi Phil, On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:37 AM Phil Reid <preid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/07/2019 17:08, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > In commit 8764c4ca5049 ("gpio: em: use the managed version of > > gpiochip_add_data()") we implicitly altered the ordering of resource > > freeing: since gpiochip_remove() calls gpiochip_irqchip_remove() > > internally, we now can potentially use the irq_domain after it was > > destroyed in the remove() callback (as devm resources are freed after > > remove() has returned). > > > > Use devm_add_action() to keep the ordering right and entirely kill > > the remove() callback in the driver. > > > > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Fixes: 8764c4ca5049 ("gpio: em: use the managed version of gpiochip_add_data()") > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c > > @@ -333,39 +340,32 @@ static int em_gio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > return -ENXIO; > > } > > > > + ret = devm_add_action(&pdev->dev, > > + em_gio_irq_domain_remove, p->irq_domain); > > Could devm_add_action_or_reset be used? Thank you very much for bringing this function to my attention! I was just wondering if devm_add_action() should call the action on failure, as this is what most callers seem to do anyway. > > > + if (ret) { > > + irq_domain_remove(p->irq_domain); > > + return ret; > > + } Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds