On Mon, 21 Oct 2019, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:58:20AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > If a child device calls mfd_cell_{en,dis}able() without an appropriate
> > call-back being set, we are likely to encounter a panic. Avoid this
> > by adding suitable checking.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
> > index 8126665bb2d8..90b43b44a15a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
> > @@ -28,6 +28,11 @@ int mfd_cell_enable(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > const struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(pdev);
> > int err = 0;
> >
> > + if (!cell->enable) {
> > + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "No .enable() call-back registered\n");
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > /* only call enable hook if the cell wasn't previously enabled */
> > if (atomic_inc_return(cell->usage_count) == 1)
> > err = cell->enable(pdev);
> > @@ -45,6 +50,11 @@ int mfd_cell_disable(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > const struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(pdev);
> > int err = 0;
> >
> > + if (!cell->enable) {
>
> Oops.
>
> Cancel the R-B: ;-). Shouldn't this be !cell->disable() ?
Yes. Looks like a C/P error.
Will fix and add your R-b.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
