Hi Phil,
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:37 AM Phil Reid preid@electromag.com.au wrote:
On 10/07/2019 17:08, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
From: Bartosz Golaszewski bgolaszewski@baylibre.com
In commit 8764c4ca5049 ("gpio: em: use the managed version of gpiochip_add_data()") we implicitly altered the ordering of resource freeing: since gpiochip_remove() calls gpiochip_irqchip_remove() internally, we now can potentially use the irq_domain after it was destroyed in the remove() callback (as devm resources are freed after remove() has returned).
Use devm_add_action() to keep the ordering right and entirely kill the remove() callback in the driver.
Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert@linux-m68k.org Fixes: 8764c4ca5049 ("gpio: em: use the managed version of gpiochip_add_data()") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski bgolaszewski@baylibre.com
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c
@@ -333,39 +340,32 @@ static int em_gio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return -ENXIO; }
ret = devm_add_action(&pdev->dev,em_gio_irq_domain_remove, p->irq_domain);Could devm_add_action_or_reset be used?
Thank you very much for bringing this function to my attention! I was just wondering if devm_add_action() should call the action on failure, as this is what most callers seem to do anyway.
if (ret) {irq_domain_remove(p->irq_domain);return ret;}
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert