lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-27 18:14    [W:0.152 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site