Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mtd: rawnand: meson: add support for Amlogic NAND flash controller

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:09:05 +0800
Jianxin Pan <jianxin.pan@amlogic.com> wrote:

> +static int meson_nfc_buffer_init(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> +{
> +	struct nand_chip *nand = mtd_to_nand(mtd);
> +	struct meson_nfc *nfc = nand_get_controller_data(nand);
> +	static int max_page_bytes, max_info_bytes;
> +	int page_bytes, info_bytes;
> +	int nsectors;
> +
> +	nsectors = mtd->writesize / nand->ecc.size;
> +	page_bytes =  mtd->writesize + mtd->oobsize;
> +	info_bytes = nsectors * PER_INFO_BYTE;
> +
> +	if (nfc->data_buf && nfc->info_buf) {
> +		if (max_page_bytes < page_bytes)
> +			meson_nfc_free_buffer(nfc);
> +		else
> +			return 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	max_page_bytes = max_t(int, max_page_bytes, page_bytes);
> +	max_info_bytes = max_t(int, max_info_bytes, info_bytes);
> +
> +	nfc->data_buf = kmalloc(max_page_bytes, GFP_KERNEL);

Is there a good reason for not using chip->data_buf and allocating a
new buffer here?

> +	if (!nfc->data_buf)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	nfc->info_buf = kmalloc(max_info_bytes, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!nfc->info_buf) {
> +		kfree(nfc->data_buf);
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	}

I'd recommend moving this info_buf in the priv chip struct, otherwise
you'll have to protect nfc->info_buf with a lock to prevent an already
register chip from using this pointer while you're reallocating the
buffer. Also, I think you have a memleak here.

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}