[PATCH v4.4] PM / OPP: Add missing of_node_put(np)

[PATCH v4.4] PM / OPP: Add missing of_node_put(np)

[Viresh Kumar]

From: Tobias Jordan <Tobias.Jordan@elektrobit.com>

commit 7978db344719dab1e56d05e6fc04aaaddcde0a5e upstream.

The for_each_available_child_of_node() loop in _of_add_opp_table_v2()
doesn't drop the reference to "np" on errors. Fix that.

Fixes: 274659029c9d (PM / OPP: Add support to parse "operating-points-v2" bindings)
Cc: 4.4 <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.4
Signed-off-by: Tobias Jordan <Tobias.Jordan@elektrobit.com>
[ VK: Improved commit log. ]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
 drivers/base/power/opp/core.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
index b8e76f75073b..0b4190a1efaa 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
@@ -1199,6 +1199,7 @@ static int _of_add_opp_table_v2(struct device *dev, struct device_node *opp_np)
 		if (ret) {
 			dev_err(dev, "%s: Failed to add OPP, %d\n", __func__,
 				ret);
++			of_node_put(np);
 			goto free_table;
 		}
 	}
-- 
2.15.0.194.g9af6a3dea062

Re: [PATCH v4.4] PM / OPP: Add missing of_node_put(np)

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:20:41PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> From: Tobias Jordan <Tobias.Jordan@elektrobit.com>
> 
> commit 7978db344719dab1e56d05e6fc04aaaddcde0a5e upstream.
> 
> The for_each_available_child_of_node() loop in _of_add_opp_table_v2()
> doesn't drop the reference to "np" on errors. Fix that.
> 
> Fixes: 274659029c9d (PM / OPP: Add support to parse "operating-points-v2" bindings)
> Cc: 4.4 <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.4
> Signed-off-by: Tobias Jordan <Tobias.Jordan@elektrobit.com>
> [ VK: Improved commit log. ]
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/power/opp/core.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> index b8e76f75073b..0b4190a1efaa 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> @@ -1199,6 +1199,7 @@ static int _of_add_opp_table_v2(struct device *dev, struct device_node *opp_np)
>  		if (ret) {
>  			dev_err(dev, "%s: Failed to add OPP, %d\n", __func__,
>  				ret);
> ++			of_node_put(np);

I don't think you test-built this patch :(

Re: [PATCH v4.4] PM / OPP: Add missing of_node_put(np)

[Viresh Kumar]

On 28-11-17, 09:43, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:20:41PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > From: Tobias Jordan <Tobias.Jordan@elektrobit.com>
> > 
> > commit 7978db344719dab1e56d05e6fc04aaaddcde0a5e upstream.
> > 
> > The for_each_available_child_of_node() loop in _of_add_opp_table_v2()
> > doesn't drop the reference to "np" on errors. Fix that.
> > 
> > Fixes: 274659029c9d (PM / OPP: Add support to parse "operating-points-v2" bindings)
> > Cc: 4.4 <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.4
> > Signed-off-by: Tobias Jordan <Tobias.Jordan@elektrobit.com>
> > [ VK: Improved commit log. ]
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/power/opp/core.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> > index b8e76f75073b..0b4190a1efaa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> > @@ -1199,6 +1199,7 @@ static int _of_add_opp_table_v2(struct device *dev, struct device_node *opp_np)
> >  		if (ret) {
> >  			dev_err(dev, "%s: Failed to add OPP, %d\n", __func__,
> >  				ret);
> > ++			of_node_put(np);
> 
> I don't think you test-built this patch :(

I actually compile tested the 4.9 patch and found the function to be
exactly same in 4.4 branch and skipped it being lazy. And the laziness
always proves that it was a bad decision to skip compiling it :(

Sorry for the ++ crap (It took me several minutes to see how your
committed change is different from what I have sent) :(

-- 
viresh