If CONFIG_GPIO_PCA953X_IRQ is enabled and an error occurs in the probe
before pca953x_irq_setup() is called chip->client->irq will be 0 due to
the kmalloc. pca953x_irq_teardown() will then try to free_irq(0, chip)
which will produce a:
WARN(1, "Trying to free already-free IRQ %d\n", irq);
Add an error path to prevent this.
Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <[email protected]>
Cc: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/pca953x.c b/drivers/gpio/pca953x.c
index 2fc25de..e1ff4d5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/pca953x.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/pca953x.c
@@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ static int __devinit pca953x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
if (pdata == NULL) {
dev_dbg(&client->dev, "no platform data\n");
ret = -EINVAL;
- goto out_failed;
+ goto out_free;
}
chip->client = client;
@@ -541,20 +541,20 @@ static int __devinit pca953x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
ret = pca953x_read_reg(chip, PCA953X_OUTPUT, &chip->reg_output);
if (ret)
- goto out_failed;
+ goto out_free;
ret = pca953x_read_reg(chip, PCA953X_DIRECTION, &chip->reg_direction);
if (ret)
- goto out_failed;
+ goto out_free;
/* set platform specific polarity inversion */
ret = pca953x_write_reg(chip, PCA953X_INVERT, pdata->invert);
if (ret)
- goto out_failed;
+ goto out_free;
ret = pca953x_irq_setup(chip, id);
if (ret)
- goto out_failed;
+ goto out_free;
ret = gpiochip_add(&chip->gpio_chip);
if (ret)
@@ -572,6 +572,7 @@ static int __devinit pca953x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
out_failed:
pca953x_irq_teardown(chip);
+out_free:
kfree(chip->dyn_pdata);
kfree(chip);
return ret;
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:02:54PM -0700, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
> If CONFIG_GPIO_PCA953X_IRQ is enabled and an error occurs in the probe
> before pca953x_irq_setup() is called chip->client->irq will be 0 due to
> the kmalloc. pca953x_irq_teardown() will then try to free_irq(0, chip)
> which will produce a:
>
> WARN(1, "Trying to free already-free IRQ %d\n", irq);
>
> Add an error path to prevent this.
>
> Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <[email protected]>
> Cc: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
Thanks for catching this Hartley.
Ben also submitted a patch for this and I ended up looking at his patch first, so that is what's applied. :-)
g.
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/pca953x.c b/drivers/gpio/pca953x.c
> index 2fc25de..e1ff4d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/pca953x.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/pca953x.c
> @@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ static int __devinit pca953x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> if (pdata == NULL) {
> dev_dbg(&client->dev, "no platform data\n");
> ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out_failed;
> + goto out_free;
> }
>
> chip->client = client;
> @@ -541,20 +541,20 @@ static int __devinit pca953x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>
> ret = pca953x_read_reg(chip, PCA953X_OUTPUT, &chip->reg_output);
> if (ret)
> - goto out_failed;
> + goto out_free;
>
> ret = pca953x_read_reg(chip, PCA953X_DIRECTION, &chip->reg_direction);
> if (ret)
> - goto out_failed;
> + goto out_free;
>
> /* set platform specific polarity inversion */
> ret = pca953x_write_reg(chip, PCA953X_INVERT, pdata->invert);
> if (ret)
> - goto out_failed;
> + goto out_free;
>
> ret = pca953x_irq_setup(chip, id);
> if (ret)
> - goto out_failed;
> + goto out_free;
>
> ret = gpiochip_add(&chip->gpio_chip);
> if (ret)
> @@ -572,6 +572,7 @@ static int __devinit pca953x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>
> out_failed:
> pca953x_irq_teardown(chip);
> +out_free:
> kfree(chip->dyn_pdata);
> kfree(chip);
> return ret;
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:49 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:02:54PM -0700, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>> If CONFIG_GPIO_PCA953X_IRQ is enabled and an error occurs in the probe
>> before pca953x_irq_setup() is called chip->client->irq will be 0 due to
>> the kmalloc. pca953x_irq_teardown() will then try to free_irq(0, chip)
>> which will produce a:
>>
>> WARN(1, "Trying to free already-free IRQ %d\n", irq);
>>
>> Add an error path to prevent this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks for catching this Hartley.
>
> Ben also submitted a patch for this and I ended up looking at his patch
> first, so that is what's applied. :-)
Not a problem. Thanks!
Hartley-