On Thu, 8 Dec 2022, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [221208 09:12]:
> > On Wed, 7 Dec 2022, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > + ret = serial_core_add_one_port(drv, port);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&port_mutex);
> > > +
> > > + /* Inititalize a serial core controller device if needed */
> > > + ctrl_dev = serial_core_ctrl_find(drv, port->dev, port->ctrl_id);
> > > + if (!ctrl_dev) {
> > > + ctrl_dev = serial_core_ctrl_device_add(port);
> > > + if (!ctrl_dev)
> > > + goto err_remove_port;
> > > + allocated = true;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* Initialize a serial core port device */
> > > + ret = serial_core_port_device_add(ctrl_dev, port);
> >
> > How is ->port_dev supposed to work here?
> >
> > ->port_dev is not set until in serial_core_port_device_add() but you made
> > serial_core_add_one_port() call before that.
>
> Hmm do you mean you want to call serial_core_add_one_port() later after
> serial_core_port_device_add()?
>
> Or are you seeing some uninitialized use of port->port_dev (and not
> port->dev)?
With the other patch on top of this, yes, I did see uninitialized
port->port_dev already in serial_core_add_one_port()->uart_configure_port().
While that could be solved by removing the pm_runtime_*() calls from
there, I think it's a generic problem because after
serial_core_add_one_port() the port can have anything happening on it, no?
--
i.
