Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:48:16 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/27] mtd: nand: introduce function to fix a common bug in most nand-drivers not showing a device in sysfs | From | Frans Klaver <> |
| |
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:03:53PM +0100, Frans Klaver wrote: >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 01:43:44AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: >> > And in fact, if any drivers are missing mtd->name, perhaps it's best to >> > just modify the MTD registration to give them a default: >> > >> > if (!mtd->name) >> > mtd->name = dev_name(&pdev->dev); >> > >> >> ... >> >> > How about we rethink the "helper" approach, and instead just do >> > validation in the core code? This would cover most of the important >> > parts of your helper, I think: >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c >> > index d201feeb3ca6..39ba5812a5a3 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c >> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c >> > @@ -397,6 +397,11 @@ int add_mtd_device(struct mtd_info *mtd) >> > if (device_register(&mtd->dev) != 0) >> > goto fail_added; >> > >> > + if (mtd->dev.parent) >> > + mtd->owner = mtd->dev.parent->driver->owner; >> > + else >> > + WARN_ON(1); >> > + >> >> So I've picked this up now. I do largely agree with the suggested >> approach where the validation and default settings are done in the core >> code. There is a problem with this, though. There are MTD devices that >> call mtd_device_parse_register() in the _init() function (such as the >> maps drivers). These don't have a device ready to be used as parent, and >> they would always be throwing this warning. > > Yeah, I came across the same thing. I think gluebi is another example. > >> So either not having a parent device is bad, or it isn't. The comment >> suggests it is, the existing code suggests it isn't. So we'll need to >> make a decision about who's right. > > I think not having a parent is not really bad. It's helpful for tracking > the device hierarchy in sysfs, but it's not strictly necessary. So we > should probably not do anything drastic like WARN_ON() yet.
OK. I'll probably add some sane defaults to add_mtd_device() and have the mtd drivers make use of that fact. Since this isn't really critical, I guess fixing the sysfs entry won't need back-porting.
>> > if (MTD_DEVT(i)) >> > device_create(&mtd_class, mtd->dev.parent, >> > MTD_DEVT(i) + 1, >> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c >> > index 1ca9aec141ff..9869bbef50cf 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c >> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c >> > @@ -370,7 +370,6 @@ static struct mtd_part *allocate_partition(struct mtd_info *master, >> > slave->mtd.subpage_sft = master->subpage_sft; >> > >> > slave->mtd.name = name; >> > - slave->mtd.owner = master->owner; >> >> What would be the purpose of removing this line? Owner is already set? >> Can we rely on that? > > I'm not completely sure why I wrote that, but I think the only call site > for alloc_partition() is in mtd_add_partition(), which calls > add_mtd_device().
Alright, I'll have a brief look into that again, then.
Thanks, Frans
| |