On 06/11/2018 03:49 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Marek, Hi, > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:39 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 06/11/2018 03:03 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:15 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 06/11/2018 11:56 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:59 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Rather than hard-coding the quirk topology, which stopped scaling, >>>>>> parse the information from DT. The code looks for all compatible >>>>>> PMICs -- da9036 and da9210 -- and checks if their IRQ line is tied >>>>>> to the same pin. If so, the code sends a matching sequence to the >>>>>> PMIC to deassert the IRQ. > >>>>>> + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "reg", &addr); >>>>>> + if (ret) >>>>>> + return ret; >>>>> >>>>> I think it's safer to skip this entry and continue, after calling >>>>> kfree(quirk), of course. >>>>> >>>>>> + >>>>>> + quirk->id = id; >>>>>> + quirk->i2c_msg.addr = addr; >>>>>> + quirk->shared = false; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ret = of_irq_parse_one(np, 0, &quirk->irq_args); >>>>>> + if (ret) >>>>>> + return ret; >>>>> >>>>> kfree(quirk) and continue... >>>> >>>> I wonder if it shouldn't rather free the entire list and abort ? >>> >>> "Be strict when sending, be liberal when receiving." >> >> Meaning ? I think "the language barrier is protecting me" (TM) > > Do the best you can, given the buggy DT you received. > I.e. don't fail completely, just ignore the bad device node, and continue. But if you ignore node, you might as well ignore one which is shared and then the system crashes due to IRQ storm anyway. So hum, what can we do ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
