On Tue, 15 Sep 2020, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
--- a/drivers/ide/macide.c
+++ b/drivers/ide/macide.c
@@ -109,42 +110,61 @@ static const char *mac_ide_name[] =
* Probe for a Macintosh IDE interface
*/
-static int __init macide_init(void)
+static int mac_ide_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
printk(KERN_INFO "ide: Macintosh %s IDE controller\n",
mac_ide_name[macintosh_config->ide_type - 1]);
- macide_setup_ports(&hw, base, irq);
+ macide_setup_ports(&hw, mem->start, irq->start);
- return ide_host_add(&d, hws, 1, NULL);
+ rc = ide_host_add(&d, hws, 1, &host);
+ if (rc)
+ return rc;
+
+ platform_set_drvdata(pdev, host);
Move one up, to play it safe?
You mean, before calling ide_host_add? The 'host' pointer is uninitialized
prior to that call.
Oh right, so the IDE subsystem doesn't let you use the drvdata inside
your driver (besides in remove()) in a safe way :-(
The IDE subsystem does allow other patterns here. I could have changed
ide_host_alloc() into ide_host_register() followed by ide_host_add() but I
could not see any benefit from that change.
A quick search for "platform_device" shows that the driver does not use
any uninitialized driver_data pointer (because ide_ifr is a global). In
your message of September 9th you readily reached the same conclusion when
you reviewed v1.
If mac_ide_probe() followed the usual pattern it might make review easier
(as reviewers may not wish to consider the entire driver) but does that
really make the code more "safe"?
