The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 5.2-stable tree.

I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to stable@vger.kernel.org and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 19ec11a2233d24a7811836fa735203aaccf95a23 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

From: Bartosz Golaszewski bgolaszewski@baylibre.com Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:29:35 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] gpio: em: remove the gpiochip before removing the irq domain

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_or_reset() 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 Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+renesas@glider.be

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c index b6af705a4e5f..a87951293aaa 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-em.c @@ -259,6 +259,13 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops em_gio_irq_domain_ops = { .xlate = irq_domain_xlate_twocell, };

+static void em_gio_irq_domain_remove(void *data) +{ + struct irq_domain *domain = data; + + irq_domain_remove(domain); +} + static int em_gio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct em_gio_priv *p; @@ -333,39 +340,30 @@ static int em_gio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return -ENXIO; }

+ ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&pdev->dev, em_gio_irq_domain_remove, + p->irq_domain); + if (ret) + return ret; + if (devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq[0]->start, em_gio_irq_handler, 0, name, p)) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to request low IRQ\n"); - ret = -ENOENT; - goto err1; + return -ENOENT; }

if (devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq[1]->start, em_gio_irq_handler, 0, name, p)) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to request high IRQ\n"); - ret = -ENOENT; - goto err1; + return -ENOENT; }

ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, gpio_chip, p); if (ret) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to add GPIO controller\n"); - goto err1; + return ret; }

return 0; - -err1: - irq_domain_remove(p->irq_domain); - return ret; -} - -static int em_gio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) -{ - struct em_gio_priv *p = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); - - irq_domain_remove(p->irq_domain); - return 0; }

static const struct of_device_id em_gio_dt_ids[] = { @@ -376,7 +374,6 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, em_gio_dt_ids);

static struct platform_driver em_gio_device_driver = { .probe = em_gio_probe, - .remove = em_gio_remove, .driver = { .name = "em_gio", .of_match_table = em_gio_dt_ids,