Message ID | 20230801-dt-changeset-fixes-v2-5-c2b701579dee@kernel.org |
---|---|
State | Changes Requested, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | dt: changeset fixes and cleanups | expand |
Context | Check | Description |
---|---|---|
robh/checkpatch | success | |
robh/patch-applied | fail | build log |
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:41:55PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > The changeset code checks for a property in the deadprops list when > adding/updating a property, but of_add_property() and > of_update_property() do not. As the users of these functions are pretty > simple, they have not hit this scenario or else the property lists > would get corrupted. Suggested-by: ? :-) ... > +static void __of_remove_dead_property(struct device_node *np, struct property *prop) > +{ > + struct property **next; > + > + /* If the property is in deadprops then it must be removed */ > + for (next = &np->deadprops; *next; next = &(*next)->next) { > + if (*next != prop) > + continue; > + > + *next = prop->next; > + prop->next = NULL; > + break; Why not if (*next == prop) { *next = prop->next; prop->next = NULL; break; } which seems to me clearer? > + } > +}
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 06:37:15PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:41:55PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > The changeset code checks for a property in the deadprops list when > > adding/updating a property, but of_add_property() and > > of_update_property() do not. As the users of these functions are pretty > > simple, they have not hit this scenario or else the property lists > > would get corrupted. > > Suggested-by: ? :-) Humm, by me? The change in behavior and point of this patch comes from me. You've provided review comments which will get covered by a Reviewed-by I presume. > > ... > > > +static void __of_remove_dead_property(struct device_node *np, struct property *prop) > > +{ > > + struct property **next; > > + > > + /* If the property is in deadprops then it must be removed */ > > + for (next = &np->deadprops; *next; next = &(*next)->next) { > > + if (*next != prop) > > + continue; > > + > > + *next = prop->next; > > + prop->next = NULL; > > + break; > > Why not > > if (*next == prop) { > *next = prop->next; > prop->next = NULL; > break; > } > > which seems to me clearer? Sure. I like the style I wrote, but whichever way ends the discussion is fine for me. Rob
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 12:09:34PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 06:37:15PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:41:55PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: ... > > Suggested-by: ? :-) > > Humm, by me? The change in behavior and point of this patch comes from > me. You've provided review comments which will get covered by a > Reviewed-by I presume. OK!
diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c index e235f3a57ea8..c63a4cde281e 100644 --- a/drivers/of/base.c +++ b/drivers/of/base.c @@ -1530,6 +1530,21 @@ int of_count_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na } EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_count_phandle_with_args); +static void __of_remove_dead_property(struct device_node *np, struct property *prop) +{ + struct property **next; + + /* If the property is in deadprops then it must be removed */ + for (next = &np->deadprops; *next; next = &(*next)->next) { + if (*next != prop) + continue; + + *next = prop->next; + prop->next = NULL; + break; + } +} + /** * __of_add_property - Add a property to a node without lock operations * @np: Caller's Device Node @@ -1539,6 +1554,8 @@ int __of_add_property(struct device_node *np, struct property *prop) { struct property **next; + __of_remove_dead_property(np, prop); + prop->next = NULL; next = &np->properties; while (*next) { @@ -1641,6 +1658,8 @@ int __of_update_property(struct device_node *np, struct property *newprop, { struct property **next, *oldprop; + __of_remove_dead_property(np, newprop); + for (next = &np->properties; *next; next = &(*next)->next) { if (of_prop_cmp((*next)->name, newprop->name) == 0) break; diff --git a/drivers/of/dynamic.c b/drivers/of/dynamic.c index fbc7c29896a2..769869e8b847 100644 --- a/drivers/of/dynamic.c +++ b/drivers/of/dynamic.c @@ -563,7 +563,6 @@ static int __of_changeset_entry_notify(struct of_changeset_entry *ce, static int __of_changeset_entry_apply(struct of_changeset_entry *ce) { - struct property **propp; unsigned long flags; int ret = 0; @@ -578,15 +577,6 @@ static int __of_changeset_entry_apply(struct of_changeset_entry *ce) __of_detach_node(ce->np); break; case OF_RECONFIG_ADD_PROPERTY: - /* If the property is in deadprops then it must be removed */ - for (propp = &ce->np->deadprops; *propp; propp = &(*propp)->next) { - if (*propp == ce->prop) { - *propp = ce->prop->next; - ce->prop->next = NULL; - break; - } - } - ret = __of_add_property(ce->np, ce->prop); break; case OF_RECONFIG_REMOVE_PROPERTY: @@ -594,15 +584,6 @@ static int __of_changeset_entry_apply(struct of_changeset_entry *ce) break; case OF_RECONFIG_UPDATE_PROPERTY: - /* If the property is in deadprops then it must be removed */ - for (propp = &ce->np->deadprops; *propp; propp = &(*propp)->next) { - if (*propp == ce->prop) { - *propp = ce->prop->next; - ce->prop->next = NULL; - break; - } - } - ret = __of_update_property(ce->np, ce->prop, &ce->old_prop); break; default:
The changeset code checks for a property in the deadprops list when adding/updating a property, but of_add_property() and of_update_property() do not. As the users of these functions are pretty simple, they have not hit this scenario or else the property lists would get corrupted. Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> --- v2: - Add helper to remove property from deadprops list --- drivers/of/base.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ drivers/of/dynamic.c | 19 ------------------- 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)