Re: [PATCH] pmdomain: rockchip: fix domain check in rockchip_pm_add_one_domain()

[Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@auroraos.dev>]

On 9/23/26 11:44 PM, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
[...]

>>> In rockchip_pm_add_one_domain(), there's the check (most probably for
>>> the case where the "reg" prop has an unexpected value?) which doesn't

   By "unexpected value" I meant a domain that isn't controlled by this
driver and so have no explicit initializer in *_pm_domains[]. Looks like
for such domain #s rockchip_pm_add_one_domain() should fail with -EINVAL.

>>> make much sense as the variable pd_info will be NULL iff pmu->info->
>>> domain_info is NULL and the variable id is 0.  What does make sense
>>> there is checking pd_info->pwr_mask and pd_info->req_mask which (as
>>> seems to follow from the code) can't both be 0 for a valid domain...

   For the domains that have no matching initializer these fields should
be both 0. I had chosen checking these 2 fields instead of pd_info->name
as I intended this patch as a fix, easily backportable to the LTS kernels.

>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with the Svace
>>> static analysis tool.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 7c696693a4f5 ("soc: rockchip: power-domain: Add power domain driver")
>>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@auroraos.dev>
>>
>> Applied for next, but without the fixes tag, thanks!
>>
>> Note, that I am dropping the fixes tag because if there was a real
>> problem, we would require yet another fix on top to get the

   If a defective DT is considered an issue then there's a problem. :-)

>> corresponding domain declaration to be correct. Yet, the patch is
>> useful as is!

   Like I've already told, my aim was not detecting the bad declarations,
just bad DTs. I probably just wasn't elaborate/assertive enough...
>    I was thinking of doing a more elaborate description but if you
> considered it good enough, OK... :-)

   So what are you going to do with this, leave things as they are: the
patch merged to the next branch (in its current form) and not merged to
fixes? Perhaps a revert or an incremental patch?

>> Kind regards
>> Uffe
MBR, Sergey