From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Chen-Yu Tsai" <wenst@chromium.org>
Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, robh@kernel.org,
linux-input@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] i2c: of-prober: skip post-power-on delay if already powered on
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2026 12:05:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260703120559.ACA4A1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260703115601.1323491-4-wenst@chromium.org>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
New issues:
- [High] The integer return value of `regulator_is_enabled()` (which can be a negative error code) is implicitly cast to or bitwise-ANDed with `bool` variables, leading to incorrect evaluations that inadvertently skip required hardware power-on delays.
- [Medium] Shared regulator logic flaw and TOCTOU race allow skipping required power-on delays.
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Optional regulator supplies missing from the device tree incorrectly cause the prober to fail, contradicting the intended optional behavior.
--
commit 7072efff03a9502c14f9b2eb5a3863213e3992ef
Author: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>
i2c: of-prober: skip post-power-on delay if already powered on
This commit modifies the I2C OF prober to check if regulator supplies are
already enabled before applying a post-power-on delay. If the supply is
already active, it skips the delay to avoid unnecessary boot time penalties.
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of-prober.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of-prober.c
> index 6a82b03809d4f..f274e260353cd 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of-prober.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of-prober.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -219,19 +220,25 @@ static void i2c_of_probe_simple_put_supply(struct i2c_of_probe_simple_ctx *ctx)
>
> static int i2c_of_probe_simple_enable_regulator(struct device *dev, struct i2c_of_probe_simple_ctx *ctx)
> {
> + bool supply_was_on;
> int ret;
>
> if (!ctx->supply)
> return 0;
>
> - dev_dbg(dev, "Enabling regulator supply \"%s\"\n", ctx->opts->supply_name);
> + supply_was_on = regulator_is_enabled(ctx->supply);
[Severity: High]
Could this introduce a regression by skipping required hardware power-on
delays if regulator_is_enabled() fails?
The integer return value of regulator_is_enabled() can be a negative error
code, but it is implicitly cast to the bool variable supply_was_on without
error checking. Any non-zero integer, including negative values, becomes true.
If regulator_is_enabled() returns an error, the code will consider the supply
as already on, causing the device to skip the mandatory post-power-on delay
and fail to probe because it has not finished initializing.
I noticed similar patterns in other drivers:
- drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-of.c:i2c_hid_of_power_up()
- drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c:elan_probe()
- drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c:elan_resume()
[Severity: Medium]
Is there a potential regression here regarding a shared regulator TOCTOU race
condition?
If two devices share a regulator and probe concurrently, Driver A might enable
the regulator. When Driver B checks regulator_is_enabled(), it returns true.
Driver B will then skip its required power-on delay and attempt to communicate
with the device.
If Driver A enabled the regulator less than the required delay time ago,
Driver B will access its device before the hardware has initialized, leading
to probe failure or I2C communication errors.
> +
> + dev_dbg(dev, "Enabling regulator supply \"%s\" (was %s)\n", ctx->opts->supply_name,
> + str_on_off(supply_was_on));
>
> ret = regulator_enable(ctx->supply);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - if (ctx->opts->post_power_on_delay_ms)
> + if (!supply_was_on && ctx->opts->post_power_on_delay_ms) {
> + dev_dbg(dev, "Waiting after enabling regulator\n");
> msleep(ctx->opts->post_power_on_delay_ms);
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but I noticed optional regulator supplies missing
from the device tree incorrectly cause the prober to fail, contradicting the
intended optional behavior.
drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of-prober.c:i2c_of_probe_simple_get_supply() {
...
supply = of_regulator_get_optional(dev, node, supply_name);
if (IS_ERR(supply)) {
return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(supply),
"Failed to get regulator supply \"%s\" from %pOF\n",
supply_name, node);
}
...
}
of_regulator_get_optional() returns -ENODEV when the supply is not in the
device tree. The function checks IS_ERR(supply) and propagates the error,
failing the probe unconditionally on hardware platforms where the device tree
omits the optional regulator.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260703115601.1323491-1-wenst@chromium.org?part=3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-03 12:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-03 11:55 [PATCH v2 0/7] arm64: mediatek: Chromebook trackpad supply fixes Chen-Yu Tsai
2026-07-03 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] Input: elan_i2c - Wait for initialization after enabling regulator supply Chen-Yu Tsai
2026-07-03 12:06 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-03 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] HID: i2c-hid-of: skip post-power-on delay if already powered on Chen-Yu Tsai
2026-07-03 12:07 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-03 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] i2c: of-prober: " Chen-Yu Tsai
2026-07-03 12:05 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-03 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] i2c: of-prober: Defer regulator_disable() on successful probe in simple helper Chen-Yu Tsai
2026-07-03 12:08 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-03 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] platform/chrome: of_hw_prober: Add delay for hana trackpads Chen-Yu Tsai
2026-07-03 12:10 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-03 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt8173-elm-hana: Unmark trackpad supply as always-on Chen-Yu Tsai
2026-07-03 11:56 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt8192-asurada-spherion: Add Synaptics trackpad's supply Chen-Yu Tsai
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=20260703120559.ACA4A1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=wenst@chromium.org \
/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