On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 06:12:48PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> 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 ?
Done. Thanks.
-Serge(y)
>
> >
> > -Serge(y)
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Arnd
> >>
> >> --
> >> Damien Le Moal
> >> Western Digital Research
> >>
>
> --
> Damien Le Moal
> Western Digital Research
>
