Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Mar 2023 15:38:59 +0530 | From | Manivannan Sadhasivam <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] usb: dwc3: qcom: Fix null ptr access during runtime_suspend() |
| |
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:51:53AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 03:17:18PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:23:32AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 10:22:15PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > > static int dwc3_qcom_suspend(struct dwc3_qcom *qcom, bool wakeup) > > > > { > > > > + struct dwc3 *dwc = platform_get_drvdata(qcom->dwc3); > > > > u32 val; > > > > int i, ret; > > > > > > > > - if (qcom->is_suspended) > > > > + if (qcom->is_suspended || !dwc) > > > > return 0; > > > > > > I think we should try to keep the layering violations confined to the > > > helper functions. So how about amending dwc3_qcom_is_host() and check > > > for NULL before dereferencing the xhci pointer? > > > > > > If the dwc3 driver hasn't probed yet, we're clearly not in host mode > > > either... > > > > Well, that's what I initially did but then I reverted to this approach as > > returning true/false from dwc3_qcom_is_host() based on the pointer availability > > doesn't sound right. > > > > For example, if we return true then it implies that the driver is in host mode > > which is logically wrong (before dwc3 probe) even though there is no impact. > > No, you should return false of course as we are *not* in host mode as I > mentioned above. >
Yes, but I interpreted it as "we are in device mode" in that case. But looking at it again, I think it just conveys that the controller is not in host mode only.
- Mani
> Johan
-- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
| |