From: Andrew Duggan <aduggan@synaptics.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
Cc: <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
Vincent Huang <vincent.huang@tw.synaptics.com>,
Nick Dyer <nick@shmanahar.org>, Chris Healy <cphealy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] Input: synaptics-rmi4: Use of_get_child_by_name() instead of of_find_node_by_name()
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:13:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <578D627C.3020800@synaptics.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160718144820.GL4663@mail.corp.redhat.com>
On 07/18/2016 07:48 AM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On Jul 13 2016 or thereabouts, Andrew Duggan wrote:
>> Calling of_find_node_by_name() assumes that the caller has incremented
>> the refcount of the of_node being passed in. Currently, the caller is
>> not incrementing the refcount of the of_node which results in the node
>> being prematurely freed when of_find_node_by_name() calls of_node_put()
>> on it. Instead use of_get_child_by_name() which does not call put on the
>> of_node.
> There are 2 other differences in using of_get_child_by_name() in place
> of of_find_node_by_name(). One is that now we are following the OF tree
> while the spinlock is not held. I think it's fine in our case. The
> other difference is that the returned of_node has not been called
> of_node_get() on it. I am not 100% sure, but I think it might be good to
> call of_node_get() on the of node here, and in remove call
> of_node_put(), just to be sure we don't use the of_node while it has
> been freed.
The comment for of_get_child_by_name() says that it returns an of_node
with the refcount incremented (drivers/of/base.c:717). Also, that the
caller needs to call of_node_put() when finished with it. I take that to
mean that the of_node_get() has been done for me by
of_get_child_by_name(). Then rmi_unregister_function() calls
of_node_put() when unregistered the function device undoing
of_get_child_by_name()'s increment of the refcount.
Unless I am missing something I think the current implementation is
correct. Hopefully, it is since this patch has already landed in Linus's
tree.
Andrew
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Duggan <aduggan@synaptics.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c
>> index b368b05..253df96 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c
>> @@ -157,11 +157,11 @@ static int rmi_function_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
>> static void rmi_function_of_probe(struct rmi_function *fn)
>> {
>> char of_name[9];
>> + struct device_node *node = fn->rmi_dev->xport->dev->of_node;
>>
>> snprintf(of_name, sizeof(of_name), "rmi4-f%02x",
>> fn->fd.function_number);
>> - fn->dev.of_node = of_find_node_by_name(
>> - fn->rmi_dev->xport->dev->of_node, of_name);
>> + fn->dev.of_node = of_get_child_by_name(node, of_name);
>> }
>> #else
>> static inline void rmi_function_of_probe(struct rmi_function *fn)
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-18 23:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-14 6:08 [PATCH v3 1/8] Input: synaptics-rmi4: Use of_get_child_by_name() instead of of_find_node_by_name() Andrew Duggan
2016-07-18 14:48 ` Benjamin Tissoires
2016-07-18 23:13 ` Andrew Duggan [this message]
2016-07-19 9:37 ` Benjamin Tissoires
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=578D627C.3020800@synaptics.com \
--to=aduggan@synaptics.com \
--cc=benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com \
--cc=cphealy@gmail.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nick@shmanahar.org \
--cc=vincent.huang@tw.synaptics.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).