Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] i2c: Set i2c pinctrl recovery info from it's device pinctrl

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:08:56PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
> 
> On 28. 12. 2022. 17:48, Hanna Hawa wrote:
> > Currently the i2c subsystem rely on the controller device tree to
> > initialize the pinctrl recovery information, part of the drivers does
> > not set this field (rinfo->pinctrl), for example i2c DesignWare driver.
> > 
> > The pins information is saved part of the device structure before probe
> > and it's done on pinctrl_bind_pins().
> > 
> > Make the i2c init recovery to get the device pins if it's not
> > initialized by the driver from the device pins.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Hanna Hawa <hhhawa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 5 ++++-
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
> > index 7539b0740351..fb5644457452 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
> > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> >   #include <linux/of.h>
> >   #include <linux/of_irq.h>
> >   #include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>
> > +#include <linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h>
> >   #include <linux/pm_domain.h>
> >   #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> >   #include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h>
> > @@ -282,7 +283,9 @@ static void i2c_gpio_init_pinctrl_recovery(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
> >   {
> >   	struct i2c_bus_recovery_info *bri = adap->bus_recovery_info;
> >   	struct device *dev = &adap->dev;
> > -	struct pinctrl *p = bri->pinctrl;
> > +	struct pinctrl *p = bri->pinctrl ?: dev_pinctrl(dev->parent);
> > +
> > +	bri->pinctrl = p;
> 
> Hi Hanna,
> I know this has already been merged, but setting bri->pinctrl breaks PXA
> recovery.

This is patch is a year and half old so it's a bit late to just revert
it...

What does "breaks" mean in this context?  Is there a NULL dereference?
Do you have a stack trace?  It's really hard to get inspired to look at
the code when the bug report is so vague...

regards,
dan carpenter