Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] driver core: Keep the supplier fwnode consistent with the device

[Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>]

Hi Saravana,

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 14:23:02 +0100
Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:39:49 +0100
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 08:46:32AM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:  
> > > The commit 3a2dbc510c43 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Don't purge child
> > > fwnode's consumer links") introduces the possibility to use the
> > > supplier's parent device instead of the supplier itself.
> > > In that case the supplier fwnode used is not updated and is no more
> > > consistent with the supplier device used.
> > > 
> > > Use the fwnode consistent with the supplier device when checking flags.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 3a2dbc510c43 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Don't purge child fwnode's consumer links")
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes v2 -> v3:
> > >   Do not update the supplier handle in order to keep the original handle
> > >   for debug traces.
> > > 
> > > Changes v1 -> v2:
> > >   Remove sup_handle check and related pr_debug() call as sup_handle cannot be
> > >   invalid if sup_dev is valid.
> > > 
> > >  drivers/base/core.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> > > index 4d8b315c48a1..440b52ec027f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> > > @@ -2082,7 +2082,7 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con,
> > >  		 * supplier device indefinitely.
> > >  		 */
> > >  		if (sup_dev->links.status == DL_DEV_NO_DRIVER &&
> > > -		    sup_handle->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_INITIALIZED) {
> > > +		    sup_dev->fwnode->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_INITIALIZED) {
> > >  			dev_dbg(con,
> > >  				"Not linking %pfwf - dev might never probe\n",
> > >  				sup_handle);
> > > -- 
> > > 2.41.0
> > >     
> > 
> > Is this still needed?  If so, how come no one is noticing it?
> >   
> 
> I think it is. At least, I don't see anything that make this patch obsolete.
> 

Any opinion about this patch ?

Best regards,
Hervé