Re: [PATCH 0/2] thermal/drivers/mediatek: fix a regression affecting other subsystems

From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@icenowy.me>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Amit Kucheria <amitk@kernel.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
	Kang Chen <void0red@hust.edu.cn>,
	Dongliang Mu <dzm91@hust.edu.cn>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] thermal/drivers/mediatek: fix a regression affecting other subsystems
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 12:17:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c0f1d7b9-5923-75d6-cb57-bb4bd4635cd7@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <05e6d2d6dd8805c4cded28f85ac873b96bc1467e.camel@icenowy.me>

On 22/07/2023 14:13, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> 在 2023-06-13星期二的 10:44 +0200，Daniel Lezcano写道：
>> On 29/05/2023 18:20, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>> In the commit I reverted as the first commit of this patchset, the
>>> of_iomap function call, which allows multiple mapping of the same
>>> physical memory space, is replaced to calling devm_of_iomap, which
>>> registers exclusivity, and on my system (mt8173-elm), preventing
>>> display
>>> from working.
>>>
>>> So I reverted it, and to really solve the problem that the original
>>> commit wants to solve, I read the source of auxadc-thermal and
>>> realized
>>> that the address of these two memory blocks are not saved after
>>> probe,
>>> and they're only used when initializing the thermal sensors. This
>>> leads
>>> to my final fix, which is the second commit here, that adds
>>> of_iounmap
>>> just to the probe function.
>>>
>>> Icenowy Zheng (2):
>>>     Revert "thermal/drivers/mediatek: Use devm_of_iomap to avoid
>>> resource
>>>       leak in mtk_thermal_probe"
>>>     thermal/drivers/mediatek: unmap foreign MMIO after probing
>>>
>>>    drivers/thermal/mediatek/auxadc_thermal.c | 46 ++++++++++++------
>>> -----
>>>    1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>
>> I'll apply only the revert and let you revisit the patch 2 which
>> could
>> be improved.
> 
> Sorry, is the first patch applied? I didn't see it in any kernel
> trees...

Yes, sorry, I got another patch meanwhile which provided the same revert 
with more tags

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230525121811.3360268-1-ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com


-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog