On 06/11/2018 04:30 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:19 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 06/11/2018 04:10 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> 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. > > That assumes you keep the list of machines to check, and don't want to fix the > issue automatically when detected (on any R-Car Gen2 or RZ/G1 platform, so > you still need to check for r8a779[0-4] and r8a774[23457]). Yes, I want to keep a list of machines to check, to be _sure_ some machine doesn't randomly blow up. > Anyway, as we care about booting old DTBs on new kernels (for a while), we > have a few more release cycles to bikeshed ;-) I was about to ask if this patch then makes any sense or not. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
