On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:55 PM Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Wen, > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 04:56:42PM +0800, Wen Yang wrote: > > The call to of_get_next_child returns a node pointer with refcount > > incremented thus it must be explicitly decremented after the last > > usage. > > > > Detected by coccinelle with the following warnings: > > ./arch/arm/mach-actions/platsmp.c:112:2-8: ERROR: missing of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 103, but without a corresponding object release within this function. > > ./arch/arm/mach-actions/platsmp.c:124:2-8: ERROR: missing of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 115, but without a corresponding object release within this function. > > ./arch/arm/mach-actions/platsmp.c:137:3-9: ERROR: missing of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 128, but without a corresponding object release within this function. > > > > We have a floating patch for this: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg694544.html > > Andreas: Can you please take a second look at the patchset submitted by Linus > Walleij and Russel for simplifying the Actions startup code? Andreas wrote a version of simplifying secondary startup in the same spirit as Russell's patches, and it's merged and all is fine I think. If this patch applied on top of the current upstream code I'd say just forget about my patch and merge Wen's patch instead. Yours, Linus Walleij _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
