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=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 E47DFC64E7B for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:13:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871A6206D5 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:13:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="ELrl+J7A" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728009AbgK3QNa (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:13:30 -0500 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([213.167.242.64]:59944 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727805AbgK3QN3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:13:29 -0500 Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (62-78-145-57.bb.dnainternet.fi [62.78.145.57]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3196EB26; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 17:12:47 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1606752767; bh=XHWQSAsrh9m4hW3O3jEWcf9HH4f/EYgK0dYt8NjBlo8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ELrl+J7AWtszvCpabBFCOD0BULItsZ/S271Szi1gcf09hdI3v36uXmZHVeAv5YABY emka19o8WCk0oBdHavEIqIJe9yins0OB8aVYnsTOmAVjmXX59J8jG1I0uwlZXL8RAj IoaGa2DHw5rhFMpwXYguIjmsw02L9u0l8R6AGnIA= Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:12:39 +0200 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Daniel Scally Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org, bgolaszewski@baylibre.com, wsa@kernel.org, yong.zhi@intel.com, sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com, bingbu.cao@intel.com, tian.shu.qiu@intel.com, mchehab@kernel.org, robert.moore@intel.com, erik.kaneda@intel.com, pmladek@suse.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org, laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com, jorhand@linux.microsoft.com, kitakar@gmail.com, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/18] software_node: Enforce parent before child ordering of nodes array for software_node_register_nodes() Message-ID: <20201130161239.GH14465@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20201130133129.1024662-1-djrscally@gmail.com> <20201130133129.1024662-5-djrscally@gmail.com> <20201130161152.GG14465@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201130161152.GG14465@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:11:52PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:15PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote: > > Registering software_nodes with the .parent member set to point to a > > currently unregistered software_node has the potential for problems, > > so enforce parent -> child ordering in arrays passed to this function. > > > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Scally > > --- > > Changes since RFC v3: > > > > Patch introduced > > > > drivers/base/swnode.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c > > index 615a0c93e116..af7930b3679e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c > > @@ -700,14 +700,21 @@ int software_node_register_nodes(const struct software_node *nodes) > > int i; > > > > for (i = 0; nodes[i].name; i++) { > > + if (nodes[i].parent) > > + if (!software_node_to_swnode(nodes[i].parent)) { > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > + goto err_unregister_nodes; > > + } > > + > > ret = software_node_register(&nodes[i]); > > - if (ret) { > > - software_node_unregister_nodes(nodes); > > - return ret; > > - } > > + if (ret) > > + goto err_unregister_nodes; > > } > > > > return 0; > > I'd add a blank line here. > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart I spoke a bit too soon. Could you update the documentation of the function to explain this new requirement ? > > +err_unregister_nodes: > > + software_node_unregister_nodes(nodes); > > + return ret; > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(software_node_register_nodes); > > > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart