On 12/6/22 17:46, Serge Semin wrote:
> 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.
Anders just posted one. Can you review it please ?
>
> -Serge(y)
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Arnd
>>
>> --
>> Damien Le Moal
>> Western Digital Research
>>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
