On 20-10-02 07:15, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:47:09AM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote: > > After checking the linux history I found no state where it was explicite > > allowed to register a platform device twice. In the early days there was > > an bug and in some cases linux did populated the same device again. This > > was fixed in 2014 by commit c6e126de43e7 ("of: Keep track of populated > > platform devices") and since then this wasn't possible anymore. > > > > The for_each_device() solution had two issues: > > 1) We are looping over all devices each time > > of_platform_device_create() gets called. > > 2) The logic around 'if (!dev->resource)' then 'continue' seems to be > > broken. This suggest that we can populate a device without > > resource(s) first and adding resource(s) later which isn't the case. > > Instead the current logic will populate the same device again but > > this time (maybe) with resources. So the caller can add the same > > device as many times as possible without resources. > > 3) The device_node gets modified if the new device_node to add has the > > same resources region. > > > > Add a device reference to the device_node to track an registered device > > seems to: > > 1) Simplify the code. > > 2) Align the logic with the current linux state with the exception that > > we are returning the already created device. > > 3) Avoid looping over each device all the time. > > 4) Fix the memory leak which can occure if of_platform_device_create() > > gets called for the same device without any resources. > > > > I added the missing check for amba devices too while on it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > v2: > > - new patch > > > > drivers/of/platform.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > > include/of.h | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/of/platform.c b/drivers/of/platform.c > > index 21c7cce1a5..01de6f98af 100644 > > --- a/drivers/of/platform.c > > +++ b/drivers/of/platform.c > > @@ -101,11 +101,18 @@ struct device_d *of_platform_device_create(struct device_node *np, > > struct device_d *dev; > > struct resource *res = NULL, temp_res; > > resource_size_t resinval; > > - int i, j, ret, num_reg = 0, match; > > + int i, ret, num_reg = 0; > > > > if (!of_device_is_available(np)) > > return NULL; > > > > + /* > > + * Linux uses the OF_POPULATED flag to skip already populated/created > > + * devices. > > + */ > > + if (np->dev) > > + return np->dev; > > + > > /* count the io resources */ > > if (of_can_translate_address(np)) > > while (of_address_to_resource(np, num_reg, &temp_res) == 0) > > @@ -121,35 +128,6 @@ struct device_d *of_platform_device_create(struct device_node *np, > > return NULL; > > } > > } > > - > > - /* > > - * A device may already be registered as platform_device. > > - * Instead of registering the same device again, just > > - * add this node to the existing device. > > - */ > > - for_each_device(dev) { > > - if (!dev->resource) > > - continue; > > - > > - for (i = 0, match = 0; i < num_reg; i++) > > - for (j = 0; j < dev->num_resources; j++) > > - if (dev->resource[j].start == > > - res[i].start && > > - dev->resource[j].end == > > - res[i].end) { > > - match++; > > - break; > > - } > > - > > - /* check if all address resources match */ > > - if (match == num_reg) { > > - debug("connecting %s to %s\n", > > - np->name, dev_name(dev)); > > - dev->device_node = np; > > - free(res); > > - return dev; > > - } > > - } > > This code is for the case when platform code has registered a device > using platform_device_register() which is also in the device tree. When > the device tree gets populated afterwards then we would have two > devices for the same resources. Ah okay, thanks for the clarification :) I see now. > The code you are removing here catches > this case and instead of registering a second device for the same > resources, the existing device only gets the pointer to the corresponding > node. Do you think that this use-case is still valid? > That said we can probably remove this code which was useful in the early > barebox device tree days, but the code you are adding doesn't replace > it. This should really be two patches. Make sense with your explanation. Regards, Marco _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox