Hi,
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 05:48:54PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 05:14 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote:
> >> It is not safe to assign the of_node to a device without driver.
> >> The device is matched against a list of drivers and the of_node
> >> could lead to a DT match with the parent driver.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Pargmann <mpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
> >> drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> >> drivers/usb/musb/musb_dsps.c | 1 - 2 files changed, 11
> >> insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c
> >> b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c index 8b7d903..d5ad9db 100644 ---
> >> a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c +++
> >> b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c @@ -1966,6 +1966,7 @@ static int
> >> musb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) int irq =
> >> platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "mc"); struct resource *iomem; void
> >> __iomem *base; + int ret;
> >>
> >> iomem = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); if
> >> (!iomem || irq <= 0) @@ -1975,7 +1976,16 @@ static int
> >> musb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) if (IS_ERR(base)) return
> >> PTR_ERR(base);
> >>
> >> - return musb_init_controller(dev, irq, base); + if
> >> (dev->parent)
>
> don't we always have a parent?
>
> >> + dev->of_node = dev->parent->of_node; + + ret =
> >> musb_init_controller(dev, irq, base); + if (ret) { +
> >> dev->of_node = NULL; + return ret; + } + + return 0; }
> >>
> >> static int musb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) diff --git
> >> a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_dsps.c b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_dsps.c
> >> index 82e1da0..7b36d32 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_dsps.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_dsps.c @@ -485,7 +485,6 @@ static int
> >> dsps_create_musb_pdev(struct dsps_glue *glue, musb->dev.parent =
> >> dev; musb->dev.dma_mask = &musb_dmamask;
> >> musb->dev.coherent_dma_mask = musb_dmamask; - musb->dev.of_node
> >> = of_node_get(dn);
> >
> > Sebastian, does this look correct to you ?
>
> Is this fixing a bug? Commit 4fc4b2 ("usb: musb: dsps: do not bind to
> "musb-hdrc") [0] should fix the problem that is described here.
> ux500 is affected by the same problem as dsps but it is only visible on
> dsps because we DEFER probe for few reasons there test the fail path.
Sorry, I didn't check again if this is fixed by some applied patches. I
first discovered this bug in september and send this patch in october.
It is the same bug.
> So by just looking at it should fix the same problem as the change I
> cited _but_ it would also cover ux500. Currently I can't think of any
> side effects by assigning of_node if the musb_init_*() did not do it.
> If we take this in I would suggest to remove the check I added (because
> it does no longer serve any purpose) and the description (why we do
> this, what is the problem exactly) is could be taken from my patch
> since I think it is better described (it safe to assign a node to a
> driver, it becomes unsafe if after platform_probe _also_ the DT probe
> is executed which was not to designed to work like this).
Your patch is already applied, so I could simply drop this one.
Regards,
Markus
>
> In the long term I would suggest to move the DT probe over to the musb
> core code and we wouldn't need the node assignment anymore…
>
> [0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg94701.html
>
> Sebastian
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
