Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:13:26 +0200 | From | Martin Kaiser <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: Fix probe failure due to of_get_nand_secure_regions() |
| |
Hi Mani and all,
Thus wrote Manivannan Sadhasivam (manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org):
> Due to 14f97f0b8e2b, the rawnand platforms without "secure-regions" > property defined in DT fails to probe. The issue is, > of_get_nand_secure_regions() errors out if > of_property_count_elems_of_size() returns a negative error code.
> If the "secure-regions" property is not present in DT, then also we'll > get -EINVAL from of_property_count_elems_of_size() but it should not > be treated as an error for platforms not declaring "secure-regions" > in DT.
> So fix this behaviour by checking for the existence of that property in > DT and return 0 if it is not present.
> Fixes: 14f97f0b8e2b ("mtd: rawnand: Add a check in of_get_nand_secure_regions()") > Reported-by: Martin Kaiser <martin@kaiser.cx> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > index cbba46432e39..3d6c6e880520 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > @@ -5228,8 +5228,14 @@ static bool of_get_nand_on_flash_bbt(struct device_node *np) > static int of_get_nand_secure_regions(struct nand_chip *chip) > { > struct device_node *dn = nand_get_flash_node(chip); > + struct property *prop; > int nr_elem, i, j;
> + /* Only proceed if the "secure-regions" property is present in DT */ > + prop = of_find_property(dn, "secure-regions", NULL); > + if (!prop) > + return 0; > + > nr_elem = of_property_count_elems_of_size(dn, "secure-regions", sizeof(u64)); > if (nr_elem <= 0) > return nr_elem; > -- > 2.25.1
not surprisingly, this fixes the issue for me.
Reviewed-by: Martin Kaiser <martin@kaiser.cx> Tested-by: Martin Kaiser <martin@kaiser.cx>
Still, I was wondering if the behaviour of of_property_count_elems_of_size makes sense. Without a prior check, there's no chance for the caller to distinguish between "property is absent" and "property is malformed".
Thanks, Martin
| |