lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] drm: Improve drm_of_component_probe() to correctly handle ports and remote ports.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 02:44:52PM +0000, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> Rockchip DRM driver cannot use the same compare_of() function to match
> ports and remote ports (aka encoders) as their OF sub-trees look different.
> Add a second compare function to be used when encoders are added to the
> component framework and patch the existing users of the function
> accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_drv.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_of.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> drivers/gpu/drm/imx/imx-drm-core.c | 3 ++-
> include/drm/drm_of.h | 6 ++++--
> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_drv.c
> index 77ab93d..3a2a929 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_drv.c
> @@ -274,7 +274,8 @@ static int armada_drm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> int ret;
>
> - ret = drm_of_component_probe(dev, compare_dev_name, &armada_master_ops);
> + ret = drm_of_component_probe(dev, compare_dev_name, compare_dev_name,
> + &armada_master_ops);
> if (ret != -EINVAL)
> return ret;
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_of.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_of.c
> index 493c05c..58fafd7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_of.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_of.c
> @@ -77,7 +77,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_of_find_possible_crtcs);
> * Returns zero if successful, or one of the standard error codes if it fails.
> */
> int drm_of_component_probe(struct device *dev,
> - int (*compare_of)(struct device *, void *),
> + int (*compare_port)(struct device *, void *),
> + int (*compare_encoder)(struct device *, void *),
> const struct component_master_ops *m_ops)
> {
> struct device_node *ep, *port, *remote;
> @@ -101,8 +102,14 @@ int drm_of_component_probe(struct device *dev,
> continue;
> }
>
> - component_match_add(dev, &match, compare_of, port);
> - of_node_put(port);
> + component_match_add(dev, &match, compare_port, port);
> + /*
> + * component_match_add keeps a reference to the port
> + * variable but does not do proper reference counting,
> + * so we cannot release the reference here. If that
> + * gets fixed, the following line should be uncommented
> + */
> + /* of_node_put(port); */

Even if it is fixed, this line should _never_ be uncommented. This is
totally the wrong place to drop the reference.

> }
>
> if (i == 0) {
> @@ -140,8 +147,14 @@ int drm_of_component_probe(struct device *dev,
> continue;
> }
>
> - component_match_add(dev, &match, compare_of, remote);
> - of_node_put(remote);
> + component_match_add(dev, &match, compare_encoder, remote);
> + /*
> + * component_match_add keeps a reference to the port
> + * variable but does not do proper reference counting,
> + * so we cannot release the reference here. If that
> + * gets fixed, the following line should be uncommented
> + */
> + /* of_node_put(remote); */

Ditto.

The component helper retains a reference (by pointer value) to the 'port'
or 'remote', which is then subsequently passed into the supplied
'compare_encoder' or 'compare_port' method.

If you drop the reference after adding the match, then that pointer can
go away and be re-used for something else - and that means it's totally
useless to the compare functions, since the memory pointed to by it may
not contain an device_node struct anymore.

So, it _never_ makes sense to drop the reference at this point.

Where it does make sense is when the array of matches is destroyed. For
that, we'd need to add a callback to the master ops struct so that the
master driver can properly release these pointers.

I'd keep most of the big comments though (up to "... varable") to
explain why we don't drop the reference.

--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-16 17:41    [W:0.045 / U:3.416 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site