On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 10:24:22PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 12/5/22 19:08, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022, at 02:11, Serge Semin wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 12:48:32PM +0100, Anders Roxell wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> for (i = 0; i < hpriv->n_clks; i++) {
> >>> - if (!strcmp(hpriv->clks[i].id, con_id))
> >>> + if (hpriv->clks && hpriv->clks[i].id &&
> >>> + !strcmp(hpriv->clks[i].id, con_id))
> >>> return hpriv->clks[i].clk;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> Indeed I should have taken into account that devm_clk_bulk_get_all()
> >> can get unnamed clocks too. But checking the hpriv->clks pointer for
> >> being not null is redundant, since the ahci_platform_get_resources()
> >> procedure makes sure that the array is always allocated. At the very
> >> least you shouldn't check the pointer in the loop, but can make sure
> >> that the clks array is available before it.
> >
> > Do you think this is otherwise the correct fix then? Any chance we
> > can still get a version of it into 6.1?
I'll think of a better solution. But at this stage it seems like the
best choice seeing the bindings permit having unnamed clocks
specified.
>
> If someone sends me a proper patch to apply, I can send a last PR for 6.1
> to Linus before week end.
I'll submit the patch today. Thanks.
-Serge(y)
>
>
> >
> > Arnd
>
> --
> Damien Le Moal
> Western Digital Research
>
