On 06/11/2018 04:10 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Marek, Hi, > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:04 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 06/11/2018 03:49 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> 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 ? > > Correct. If it's a critical node, it will crash regardless. > If it's a non-critical node, you have the choice between aborting and crashing, > or ignoring and keeping the system alive. Your call. But wait, since we control which machines this code runs on , can't we assure they have valid DTs ? This situation with invalid DT starts to look a bit hypothetical to me. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
