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
>>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
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: 6+ 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
2016-07-14 6:08 ` Andrew Duggan
2016-07-18 14:48 ` Benjamin Tissoires
2016-07-18 23:13 ` Andrew Duggan [this message]
2016-07-18 23:13 ` Andrew Duggan
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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.