On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 01:12:45PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> Use of_property_present() to test for property presence rather than
> of_(find|get)_property(). This is part of a larger effort to remove
> callers of of_find_property() and similar functions. of_find_property()
> leaks the DT struct property and data pointers which is a problem for
> dynamically allocated nodes which may be freed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c | 2 +-
> drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 2 +-
> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 6 +++---
> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
I have applied this patch.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c
> index 087506e21508..376187ad5754 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c
> @@ -509,7 +509,7 @@ static int imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_alloc(struct imx_dsp_rproc *priv)
> struct mbox_client *cl;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!of_get_property(dev->of_node, "mbox-names", NULL))
> + if (!of_property_present(dev->of_node, "mbox-names"))
> return 0;
>
> cl = &priv->cl;
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> index 144c8e9a642e..8d7ecc809c67 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> @@ -807,7 +807,7 @@ static int imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(struct rproc *rproc)
> if (priv->tx_ch && priv->rx_ch)
> return 0;
>
> - if (!of_get_property(dev->of_node, "mbox-names", NULL))
> + if (!of_property_present(dev->of_node, "mbox-names"))
> return 0;
>
> cl = &priv->cl;
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> index 596f3ffb8935..2cea97c746fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> @@ -1059,7 +1059,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster,
> r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[0];
>
> /* Maintain backward compatibility for zynqmp by using hardcode TCM address. */
> - if (of_find_property(r5_core->np, "reg", NULL))
> + if (of_property_present(r5_core->np, "reg"))
> ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(cluster);
> else if (device_is_compatible(dev, "xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss"))
> ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster);
> @@ -1086,7 +1086,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster,
> return ret;
> }
>
> - if (of_find_property(dev_of_node(dev), "xlnx,tcm-mode", NULL) ||
> + if (of_property_present(dev_of_node(dev), "xlnx,tcm-mode") ||
> device_is_compatible(dev, "xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss")) {
> ret = zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(r5_core->pm_domain_id,
> tcm_mode);
> @@ -1147,7 +1147,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (of_find_property(dev_node, "xlnx,tcm-mode", NULL)) {
> + if (of_property_present(dev_node, "xlnx,tcm-mode")) {
> ret = of_property_read_u32(dev_node, "xlnx,tcm-mode", (u32 *)&tcm_mode);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> --
> 2.43.0
>
