From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343F7ECDE43 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 09:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71582064A for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 09:02:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E71582064A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=amlogic.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727130AbeJSRHR (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:07:17 -0400 Received: from mail-sz2.amlogic.com ([211.162.65.114]:23372 "EHLO mail-sz2.amlogic.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726399AbeJSRHR (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:07:17 -0400 Received: from [10.28.18.51] (10.28.18.51) by mail-sz2.amlogic.com (10.28.11.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:01:51 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mtd: rawnand: meson: add support for Amlogic NAND flash controller To: Boris Brezillon CC: Jianxin Pan , , Yixun Lan , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Marek Vasut , Richard Weinberger , Jerome Brunet , Neil Armstrong , Martin Blumenstingl , Carlo Caione , Kevin Hilman , Rob Herring , Jian Hu , Hanjie Lin , Victor Wan , , , References: <1539839345-14021-1-git-send-email-jianxin.pan@amlogic.com> <1539839345-14021-3-git-send-email-jianxin.pan@amlogic.com> <20181018225009.59d94aee@bbrezillon> <695f6a8b-d37b-bc57-215b-eb6c36252a80@amlogic.com> <20181019104248.528a3409@bbrezillon> From: Liang Yang Message-ID: <0b07e022-60f5-6263-bfa7-779e7aa3cbe1@amlogic.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:01:51 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181019104248.528a3409@bbrezillon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.28.18.51] X-ClientProxiedBy: mail-sz2.amlogic.com (10.28.11.6) To mail-sz2.amlogic.com (10.28.11.6) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018/10/19 16:42, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:29:40 +0800 > Liang Yang wrote: > >> On 2018/10/19 4:50, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:09:05 +0800 >>> Jianxin Pan wrote: >>> >>>> +static int meson_nfc_buffer_init(struct mtd_info *mtd) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct nand_chip *nand = mtd_to_nand(mtd); >>>> + struct meson_nfc *nfc = nand_get_controller_data(nand); >>>> + static int max_page_bytes, max_info_bytes; >>>> + int page_bytes, info_bytes; >>>> + int nsectors; >>>> + >>>> + nsectors = mtd->writesize / nand->ecc.size; >>>> + page_bytes = mtd->writesize + mtd->oobsize; >>>> + info_bytes = nsectors * PER_INFO_BYTE; >>>> + >>>> + if (nfc->data_buf && nfc->info_buf) { >>>> + if (max_page_bytes < page_bytes) >>>> + meson_nfc_free_buffer(nfc); >>>> + else >>>> + return 0; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + max_page_bytes = max_t(int, max_page_bytes, page_bytes); >>>> + max_info_bytes = max_t(int, max_info_bytes, info_bytes); >>>> + >>>> + nfc->data_buf = kmalloc(max_page_bytes, GFP_KERNEL); >>> >>> Is there a good reason for not using chip->data_buf and allocating a >>> new buffer here? >>> >> when calling read_oob or write_oob, i need a mid-buffer which is used in >> meson_nfc_prase_data_oob(). i.e. after reading a page data into >> nfc->data_buf, I will format it and transfer to chip->data_buf. >> >> >>>> + if (!nfc->data_buf) >>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>> + >>>> + nfc->info_buf = kmalloc(max_info_bytes, GFP_KERNEL); >>>> + if (!nfc->info_buf) { >>>> + kfree(nfc->data_buf); >>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>> + } >>> >>> I'd recommend moving this info_buf in the priv chip struct, otherwise >>> you'll have to protect nfc->info_buf with a lock to prevent an already >>> register chip from using this pointer while you're reallocating the >>> buffer. Also, I think you have a memleak here. >>> >> ok, i will move it in the chip struct . >> >> but how memleak happens even i have called meson_nfc_free_buffer before >> and free data_buf if info_buf alloc faied. > > You're right, I missed the call to meson_nfc_free_buffer() when > max_page_bytes < page_bytes. Still, this part is racy, just like the > nfc->data_buf replacement is if you have several NAND chips. I'd > recommend moving those bufs to the priv chip struct. > ok. i will move data_duf and info_buf to priv chip struct. >> >>>> + >>>> + return 0; >>>> +} >>> >>> . >>> > > . > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: liang.yang@amlogic.com (Liang Yang) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:01:51 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v5 2/2] mtd: rawnand: meson: add support for Amlogic NAND flash controller In-Reply-To: <20181019104248.528a3409@bbrezillon> References: <1539839345-14021-1-git-send-email-jianxin.pan@amlogic.com> <1539839345-14021-3-git-send-email-jianxin.pan@amlogic.com> <20181018225009.59d94aee@bbrezillon> <695f6a8b-d37b-bc57-215b-eb6c36252a80@amlogic.com> <20181019104248.528a3409@bbrezillon> Message-ID: <0b07e022-60f5-6263-bfa7-779e7aa3cbe1@amlogic.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2018/10/19 16:42, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:29:40 +0800 > Liang Yang wrote: > >> On 2018/10/19 4:50, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:09:05 +0800 >>> Jianxin Pan wrote: >>> >>>> +static int meson_nfc_buffer_init(struct mtd_info *mtd) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct nand_chip *nand = mtd_to_nand(mtd); >>>> + struct meson_nfc *nfc = nand_get_controller_data(nand); >>>> + static int max_page_bytes, max_info_bytes; >>>> + int page_bytes, info_bytes; >>>> + int nsectors; >>>> + >>>> + nsectors = mtd->writesize / nand->ecc.size; >>>> + page_bytes = mtd->writesize + mtd->oobsize; >>>> + info_bytes = nsectors * PER_INFO_BYTE; >>>> + >>>> + if (nfc->data_buf && nfc->info_buf) { >>>> + if (max_page_bytes < page_bytes) >>>> + meson_nfc_free_buffer(nfc); >>>> + else >>>> + return 0; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + max_page_bytes = max_t(int, max_page_bytes, page_bytes); >>>> + max_info_bytes = max_t(int, max_info_bytes, info_bytes); >>>> + >>>> + nfc->data_buf = kmalloc(max_page_bytes, GFP_KERNEL); >>> >>> Is there a good reason for not using chip->data_buf and allocating a >>> new buffer here? >>> >> when calling read_oob or write_oob, i need a mid-buffer which is used in >> meson_nfc_prase_data_oob(). i.e. after reading a page data into >> nfc->data_buf, I will format it and transfer to chip->data_buf. >> >> >>>> + if (!nfc->data_buf) >>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>> + >>>> + nfc->info_buf = kmalloc(max_info_bytes, GFP_KERNEL); >>>> + if (!nfc->info_buf) { >>>> + kfree(nfc->data_buf); >>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>> + } >>> >>> I'd recommend moving this info_buf in the priv chip struct, otherwise >>> you'll have to protect nfc->info_buf with a lock to prevent an already >>> register chip from using this pointer while you're reallocating the >>> buffer. Also, I think you have a memleak here. >>> >> ok, i will move it in the chip struct . >> >> but how memleak happens even i have called meson_nfc_free_buffer before >> and free data_buf if info_buf alloc faied. > > You're right, I missed the call to meson_nfc_free_buffer() when > max_page_bytes < page_bytes. Still, this part is racy, just like the > nfc->data_buf replacement is if you have several NAND chips. I'd > recommend moving those bufs to the priv chip struct. > ok. i will move data_duf and info_buf to priv chip struct. >> >>>> + >>>> + return 0; >>>> +} >>> >>> . >>> > > . > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: liang.yang@amlogic.com (Liang Yang) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:01:51 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v5 2/2] mtd: rawnand: meson: add support for Amlogic NAND flash controller In-Reply-To: <20181019104248.528a3409@bbrezillon> References: <1539839345-14021-1-git-send-email-jianxin.pan@amlogic.com> <1539839345-14021-3-git-send-email-jianxin.pan@amlogic.com> <20181018225009.59d94aee@bbrezillon> <695f6a8b-d37b-bc57-215b-eb6c36252a80@amlogic.com> <20181019104248.528a3409@bbrezillon> Message-ID: <0b07e022-60f5-6263-bfa7-779e7aa3cbe1@amlogic.com> To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linus-amlogic.lists.infradead.org On 2018/10/19 16:42, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:29:40 +0800 > Liang Yang wrote: > >> On 2018/10/19 4:50, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:09:05 +0800 >>> Jianxin Pan wrote: >>> >>>> +static int meson_nfc_buffer_init(struct mtd_info *mtd) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct nand_chip *nand = mtd_to_nand(mtd); >>>> + struct meson_nfc *nfc = nand_get_controller_data(nand); >>>> + static int max_page_bytes, max_info_bytes; >>>> + int page_bytes, info_bytes; >>>> + int nsectors; >>>> + >>>> + nsectors = mtd->writesize / nand->ecc.size; >>>> + page_bytes = mtd->writesize + mtd->oobsize; >>>> + info_bytes = nsectors * PER_INFO_BYTE; >>>> + >>>> + if (nfc->data_buf && nfc->info_buf) { >>>> + if (max_page_bytes < page_bytes) >>>> + meson_nfc_free_buffer(nfc); >>>> + else >>>> + return 0; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + max_page_bytes = max_t(int, max_page_bytes, page_bytes); >>>> + max_info_bytes = max_t(int, max_info_bytes, info_bytes); >>>> + >>>> + nfc->data_buf = kmalloc(max_page_bytes, GFP_KERNEL); >>> >>> Is there a good reason for not using chip->data_buf and allocating a >>> new buffer here? >>> >> when calling read_oob or write_oob, i need a mid-buffer which is used in >> meson_nfc_prase_data_oob(). i.e. after reading a page data into >> nfc->data_buf, I will format it and transfer to chip->data_buf. >> >> >>>> + if (!nfc->data_buf) >>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>> + >>>> + nfc->info_buf = kmalloc(max_info_bytes, GFP_KERNEL); >>>> + if (!nfc->info_buf) { >>>> + kfree(nfc->data_buf); >>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>> + } >>> >>> I'd recommend moving this info_buf in the priv chip struct, otherwise >>> you'll have to protect nfc->info_buf with a lock to prevent an already >>> register chip from using this pointer while you're reallocating the >>> buffer. Also, I think you have a memleak here. >>> >> ok, i will move it in the chip struct . >> >> but how memleak happens even i have called meson_nfc_free_buffer before >> and free data_buf if info_buf alloc faied. > > You're right, I missed the call to meson_nfc_free_buffer() when > max_page_bytes < page_bytes. Still, this part is racy, just like the > nfc->data_buf replacement is if you have several NAND chips. I'd > recommend moving those bufs to the priv chip struct. > ok. i will move data_duf and info_buf to priv chip struct. >> >>>> + >>>> + return 0; >>>> +} >>> >>> . >>> > > . >