Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Jul 2020 00:55:42 +0200 | From | Alexandre Belloni <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ARM: at91: pm: add missing put_device() call in at91_pm_sram_init() |
| |
On 03/07/2020 09:15:20+0800, yukuai (C) wrote: > > On 2020/7/3 4:09, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 04/06/2020 20:33:01+0800, yu kuai wrote: > > > if of_find_device_by_node() succeed, at91_pm_sram_init() doesn't have > > > a corresponding put_device(). Thus add a jump target to fix the exception > > > handling for this function implementation. > > > > > > Fixes: d2e467905596 ("ARM: at91: pm: use the mmio-sram pool to access SRAM") > > > Signed-off-by: yu kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> > > > --- > > > arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c | 11 ++++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c > > > index 074bde64064e..2aab043441e8 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c > > > @@ -592,13 +592,13 @@ static void __init at91_pm_sram_init(void) > > > sram_pool = gen_pool_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); > > > > Isn't the best solution to simply have put_device hereHi, Alexandre ! > > I think put_device() is supposed to be called in the exception handling > path. > > > > > > if (!sram_pool) { > > > pr_warn("%s: sram pool unavailable!\n", __func__); > > > - return; > > > + goto out_put_device; > > > } > > > sram_base = gen_pool_alloc(sram_pool, at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz); > > > if (!sram_base) { > > > pr_warn("%s: unable to alloc sram!\n", __func__); > > > - return; > > > + goto out_put_device; > > > } > > > sram_pbase = gen_pool_virt_to_phys(sram_pool, sram_base); > > > @@ -606,12 +606,17 @@ static void __init at91_pm_sram_init(void) > > > at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz, false); > > > if (!at91_suspend_sram_fn) { > > > pr_warn("SRAM: Could not map\n"); > > > - return; > > > + goto out_put_device; > > > } > > > /* Copy the pm suspend handler to SRAM */ > > > at91_suspend_sram_fn = fncpy(at91_suspend_sram_fn, > > > &at91_pm_suspend_in_sram, at91_pm_suspend_in_sram_sz); > > If nothing is wrong, maybe put_device shounld't be called? >
I don't think this is the case but as the reference implementation (imx6) is carrying the patch, I'm going to apply this one.
A better fix would have been to also factorize imx_suspend_alloc_ocram, imx6q_suspend_init, socfpga_setup_ocram_self_refresh and at91_pm_sram_init as they were all copied from pm-imx6.c
-- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
| |