lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] ARM: at91: pm: add missing put_device() call in at91_pm_sram_init()
    On 03/07/2020 09:15:20+0800, yukuai (C) wrote:
    >
    > On 2020/7/3 4:09, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > On 04/06/2020 20:33:01+0800, yu kuai wrote:
    > > > if of_find_device_by_node() succeed, at91_pm_sram_init() doesn't have
    > > > a corresponding put_device(). Thus add a jump target to fix the exception
    > > > handling for this function implementation.
    > > >
    > > > Fixes: d2e467905596 ("ARM: at91: pm: use the mmio-sram pool to access SRAM")
    > > > Signed-off-by: yu kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
    > > > ---
    > > > arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c | 11 ++++++++---
    > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
    > > >
    > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
    > > > index 074bde64064e..2aab043441e8 100644
    > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
    > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
    > > > @@ -592,13 +592,13 @@ static void __init at91_pm_sram_init(void)
    > > > sram_pool = gen_pool_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
    > >
    > > Isn't the best solution to simply have put_device hereHi, Alexandre !
    >
    > I think put_device() is supposed to be called in the exception handling
    > path.
    >
    > >
    > > > if (!sram_pool) {
    > > > pr_warn("%s: sram pool unavailable!\n", __func__);
    > > > - return;
    > > > + goto out_put_device;
    > > > }
    > > > sram_base = gen_pool_alloc(sram_pool, at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz);
    > > > if (!sram_base) {
    > > > pr_warn("%s: unable to alloc sram!\n", __func__);
    > > > - return;
    > > > + goto out_put_device;
    > > > }
    > > > sram_pbase = gen_pool_virt_to_phys(sram_pool, sram_base);
    > > > @@ -606,12 +606,17 @@ static void __init at91_pm_sram_init(void)
    > > > at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz, false);
    > > > if (!at91_suspend_sram_fn) {
    > > > pr_warn("SRAM: Could not map\n");
    > > > - return;
    > > > + goto out_put_device;
    > > > }
    > > > /* Copy the pm suspend handler to SRAM */
    > > > at91_suspend_sram_fn = fncpy(at91_suspend_sram_fn,
    > > > &at91_pm_suspend_in_sram, at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz);
    >
    > If nothing is wrong, maybe put_device shounld't be called?
    >

    I don't think this is the case but as the reference implementation
    (imx6) is carrying the patch, I'm going to apply this one.

    A better fix would have been to also factorize imx_suspend_alloc_ocram,
    imx6q_suspend_init, socfpga_setup_ocram_self_refresh and
    at91_pm_sram_init as they were all copied from pm-imx6.c


    --
    Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
    Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
    https://bootlin.com

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-07-18 00:57    [W:2.500 / U:0.592 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site