From: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
Before commit e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to
non-negative cell_count") the iterator functions calling
of_for_each_phandle assumed a cell count of 0 if cells_name was NULL.
This corner case was missed when implementing the fallback logic in
e42ee61017f5 and resulted in an endless loop.
Restore the old behaviour of of_count_phandle_with_args() and
of_parse_phandle_with_args() and add a check to
of_phandle_iterator_init() to prevent a similar failure as a safety
precaution. of_parse_phandle_with_args_map() doesn't need a similar fix
as cells_name isn't NULL there.
Affected drivers are:
- drivers/base/power/domain.c
- drivers/base/power/domain.c
- drivers/clk/ti/clk-dra7-atl.c
- drivers/hwmon/ibmpowernv.c
- drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-demux-pinctrl.c
- drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
- drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/mac.c
- drivers/opp/of.c
- drivers/perf/arm_dsu_pmu.c
- drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c
- drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
- drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
- sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
- sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
- sound/soc/meson/axg-card.c
- sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
- sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
Thanks to Geert Uytterhoeven for reporting the issue, Peter Rosin for
helping pinpoint the actual problem and the testers for confirming this
fix.
Fixes: e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to non-negative cell_count")
Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
---
Hello,
compared to the untested patch I sent yesterday I also fixed
of_parse_phandle_with_args which has three users that pass
cells_name=NULL. (i.e. drivers/clk/ti/clk-dra7-atl.c,
sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c, sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c) I didn't
look closely, but maybe these could be converted to use of_parse_phandle
as there are no arguments to be processed with no cells_name?!
Best regards
Uwe
drivers/of/base.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
index 2f25d2dfecfa..25ee07c0a3cd 100644
--- a/drivers/of/base.c
+++ b/drivers/of/base.c
@@ -1286,6 +1286,13 @@ int of_phandle_iterator_init(struct of_phandle_iterator *it,
memset(it, 0, sizeof(*it));
+ /*
+ * one of cell_count or cells_name must be provided to determine the
+ * argument length.
+ */
+ if (cell_count < 0 && !cells_name)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
list = of_get_property(np, list_name, &size);
if (!list)
return -ENOENT;
@@ -1512,10 +1519,17 @@ int of_parse_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na
const char *cells_name, int index,
struct of_phandle_args *out_args)
{
+ int cell_count = -1;
+
if (index < 0)
return -EINVAL;
- return __of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, list_name, cells_name, -1,
- index, out_args);
+
+ /* If cells_name if NULL we assume a cell count of 0 */
+ if (!cells_name)
+ cell_count = 0;
+
+ return __of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, list_name, cells_name,
+ cell_count, index, out_args);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_parse_phandle_with_args);
@@ -1765,6 +1779,18 @@ int of_count_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na
struct of_phandle_iterator it;
int rc, cur_index = 0;
+ /* If cells_name is NULL we assume a cell count of 0 */
+ if (cells_name == NULL) {
+ const __be32 *list;
+ int size;
+
+ list = of_get_property(np, list_name, &size);
+ if (!list)
+ return -ENOENT;
+
+ return size / sizeof(*list);
+ }
+
rc = of_phandle_iterator_init(&it, np, list_name, cells_name, -1);
if (rc)
return rc;
--
2.23.0
On 2019-09-18 08:38, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> From: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
>
> Before commit e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to
> non-negative cell_count") the iterator functions calling
> of_for_each_phandle assumed a cell count of 0 if cells_name was NULL.
> This corner case was missed when implementing the fallback logic in
> e42ee61017f5 and resulted in an endless loop.
>
> Restore the old behaviour of of_count_phandle_with_args() and
> of_parse_phandle_with_args() and add a check to
> of_phandle_iterator_init() to prevent a similar failure as a safety
> precaution. of_parse_phandle_with_args_map() doesn't need a similar fix
> as cells_name isn't NULL there.
>
> Affected drivers are:
> - drivers/base/power/domain.c
> - drivers/base/power/domain.c
> - drivers/clk/ti/clk-dra7-atl.c
> - drivers/hwmon/ibmpowernv.c
> - drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-demux-pinctrl.c
> - drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> - drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/mac.c
> - drivers/opp/of.c
> - drivers/perf/arm_dsu_pmu.c
> - drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c
> - drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> - drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
> - sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
> - sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
> - sound/soc/meson/axg-card.c
> - sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
> - sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
>
> Thanks to Geert Uytterhoeven for reporting the issue, Peter Rosin for
> helping pinpoint the actual problem and the testers for confirming this
> fix.
>
> Fixes: e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to non-negative cell_count")
> Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
> ---
> Hello,
>
> compared to the untested patch I sent yesterday I also fixed
> of_parse_phandle_with_args which has three users that pass
> cells_name=NULL. (i.e. drivers/clk/ti/clk-dra7-atl.c,
> sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c, sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c) I didn't
> look closely, but maybe these could be converted to use of_parse_phandle
> as there are no arguments to be processed with no cells_name?!
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> drivers/of/base.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
> index 2f25d2dfecfa..25ee07c0a3cd 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
> @@ -1286,6 +1286,13 @@ int of_phandle_iterator_init(struct of_phandle_iterator *it,
>
> memset(it, 0, sizeof(*it));
>
> + /*
> + * one of cell_count or cells_name must be provided to determine the
> + * argument length.
> + */
> + if (cell_count < 0 && !cells_name)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> list = of_get_property(np, list_name, &size);
> if (!list)
> return -ENOENT;
> @@ -1512,10 +1519,17 @@ int of_parse_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na
> const char *cells_name, int index,
> struct of_phandle_args *out_args)
> {
> + int cell_count = -1;
> +
> if (index < 0)
> return -EINVAL;
> - return __of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, list_name, cells_name, -1,
> - index, out_args);
> +
> + /* If cells_name if NULL we assume a cell count of 0 */
> + if (!cells_name)
> + cell_count = 0;
> +
> + return __of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, list_name, cells_name,
> + cell_count, index, out_args);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_parse_phandle_with_args);
>
> @@ -1765,6 +1779,18 @@ int of_count_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na
> struct of_phandle_iterator it;
> int rc, cur_index = 0;
>
> + /* If cells_name is NULL we assume a cell count of 0 */
> + if (cells_name == NULL) {
A couple of nits.
I don't know if there are other considerations, but in the previous two
hunks you use !cells_name instead of comparing explicitly with NULL.
Personally, I find the shorter form more readable, and in the name of
consistency bla bla...
Also, the comment explaining this NULL-check didn't really make sense
to me until I realized that knowing the cell count to be zero makes
counting trivial. Something along those lines should perhaps be in the
comment?
But as I said, these are nits. Feel free to ignore.
Cheers,
Peter
> + const __be32 *list;
> + int size;
> +
> + list = of_get_property(np, list_name, &size);
> + if (!list)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> + return size / sizeof(*list);
> + }
> +
> rc = of_phandle_iterator_init(&it, np, list_name, cells_name, -1);
> if (rc)
> return rc;
>
Before commit e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to
non-negative cell_count") the iterator functions calling
of_for_each_phandle assumed a cell count of 0 if cells_name was NULL.
This corner case was missed when implementing the fallback logic in
e42ee61017f5 and resulted in an endless loop.
Restore the old behaviour of of_count_phandle_with_args() and
of_parse_phandle_with_args() and add a check to
of_phandle_iterator_init() to prevent a similar failure as a safety
precaution. of_parse_phandle_with_args_map() doesn't need a similar fix
as cells_name isn't NULL there.
Affected drivers are:
- drivers/base/power/domain.c
- drivers/base/power/domain.c
- drivers/clk/ti/clk-dra7-atl.c
- drivers/hwmon/ibmpowernv.c
- drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-demux-pinctrl.c
- drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
- drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/mac.c
- drivers/opp/of.c
- drivers/perf/arm_dsu_pmu.c
- drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c
- drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
- drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
- sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
- sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
- sound/soc/meson/axg-card.c
- sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
- sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
Thanks to Geert Uytterhoeven for reporting the issue, Peter Rosin for
helping pinpoint the actual problem and the testers for confirming this
fix.
Fixes: e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to non-negative cell_count")
Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <[email protected]>
---
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 08:01:05AM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2019-09-18 08:38, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_parse_phandle_with_args);
> >
> > @@ -1765,6 +1779,18 @@ int of_count_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na
> > struct of_phandle_iterator it;
> > int rc, cur_index = 0;
> >
> > + /* If cells_name is NULL we assume a cell count of 0 */
> > + if (cells_name == NULL) {
>
> A couple of nits.
>
> I don't know if there are other considerations, but in the previous two
> hunks you use !cells_name instead of comparing explicitly with NULL.
> Personally, I find the shorter form more readable, and in the name of
> consistency bla bla...
Ack, changed to !cells_name here, too.
>
> Also, the comment explaining this NULL-check didn't really make sense
> to me until I realized that knowing the cell count to be zero makes
> counting trivial. Something along those lines should perhaps be in the
> comment?
You're right, I extended the comment a bit.
> But as I said, these are nits. Feel free to ignore.
I considered resending already anyhow as I fatfingerd my email address.
this is fixed now, too. Additionally I fixed a typo in one of the
comments.
Thanks for your feedback.
Best regards
Uwe
drivers/of/base.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
index 2f25d2dfecfa..1d667eb730e1 100644
--- a/drivers/of/base.c
+++ b/drivers/of/base.c
@@ -1286,6 +1286,13 @@ int of_phandle_iterator_init(struct of_phandle_iterator *it,
memset(it, 0, sizeof(*it));
+ /*
+ * one of cell_count or cells_name must be provided to determine the
+ * argument length.
+ */
+ if (cell_count < 0 && !cells_name)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
list = of_get_property(np, list_name, &size);
if (!list)
return -ENOENT;
@@ -1512,10 +1519,17 @@ int of_parse_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na
const char *cells_name, int index,
struct of_phandle_args *out_args)
{
+ int cell_count = -1;
+
if (index < 0)
return -EINVAL;
- return __of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, list_name, cells_name, -1,
- index, out_args);
+
+ /* If cells_name is NULL we assume a cell count of 0 */
+ if (!cells_name)
+ cell_count = 0;
+
+ return __of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, list_name, cells_name,
+ cell_count, index, out_args);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_parse_phandle_with_args);
@@ -1765,6 +1779,23 @@ int of_count_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na
struct of_phandle_iterator it;
int rc, cur_index = 0;
+ /*
+ * If cells_name is NULL we assume a cell count of 0. This makes
+ * counting the phandles trivial as each 32bit word in the list is a
+ * phandle and no arguments are to consider. So we don't iterate through
+ * the list but just use the length to determine the phandle count.
+ */
+ if (!cells_name) {
+ const __be32 *list;
+ int size;
+
+ list = of_get_property(np, list_name, &size);
+ if (!list)
+ return -ENOENT;
+
+ return size / sizeof(*list);
+ }
+
rc = of_phandle_iterator_init(&it, np, list_name, cells_name, -1);
if (rc)
return rc;
--
2.23.0
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:47 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Before commit e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to
> non-negative cell_count") the iterator functions calling
> of_for_each_phandle assumed a cell count of 0 if cells_name was NULL.
> This corner case was missed when implementing the fallback logic in
> e42ee61017f5 and resulted in an endless loop.
>
> Restore the old behaviour of of_count_phandle_with_args() and
> of_parse_phandle_with_args() and add a check to
> of_phandle_iterator_init() to prevent a similar failure as a safety
> precaution. of_parse_phandle_with_args_map() doesn't need a similar fix
> as cells_name isn't NULL there.
>
> Affected drivers are:
> - drivers/base/power/domain.c
> - drivers/base/power/domain.c
> - drivers/clk/ti/clk-dra7-atl.c
> - drivers/hwmon/ibmpowernv.c
> - drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-demux-pinctrl.c
> - drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> - drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/mac.c
> - drivers/opp/of.c
> - drivers/perf/arm_dsu_pmu.c
> - drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c
> - drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> - drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
> - sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
> - sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
> - sound/soc/meson/axg-card.c
> - sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
> - sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
>
> Thanks to Geert Uytterhoeven for reporting the issue, Peter Rosin for
> helping pinpoint the actual problem and the testers for confirming this
> fix.
>
> Fixes: e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to non-negative cell_count")
> Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 08:01:05AM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2019-09-18 08:38, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_parse_phandle_with_args);
> > >
> > > @@ -1765,6 +1779,18 @@ int of_count_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na
> > > struct of_phandle_iterator it;
> > > int rc, cur_index = 0;
> > >
> > > + /* If cells_name is NULL we assume a cell count of 0 */
> > > + if (cells_name == NULL) {
> >
> > A couple of nits.
> >
> > I don't know if there are other considerations, but in the previous two
> > hunks you use !cells_name instead of comparing explicitly with NULL.
> > Personally, I find the shorter form more readable, and in the name of
> > consistency bla bla...
>
> Ack, changed to !cells_name here, too.
>
> >
> > Also, the comment explaining this NULL-check didn't really make sense
> > to me until I realized that knowing the cell count to be zero makes
> > counting trivial. Something along those lines should perhaps be in the
> > comment?
>
> You're right, I extended the comment a bit.
>
> > But as I said, these are nits. Feel free to ignore.
>
> I considered resending already anyhow as I fatfingerd my email address.
> this is fixed now, too. Additionally I fixed a typo in one of the
> comments.
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> drivers/of/base.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Can I get a proper patch please.
Rob
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:47 AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Before commit e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to
> > non-negative cell_count") the iterator functions calling
> > of_for_each_phandle assumed a cell count of 0 if cells_name was NULL.
> > This corner case was missed when implementing the fallback logic in
> > e42ee61017f5 and resulted in an endless loop.
> >
> > Restore the old behaviour of of_count_phandle_with_args() and
> > of_parse_phandle_with_args() and add a check to
> > of_phandle_iterator_init() to prevent a similar failure as a safety
> > precaution. of_parse_phandle_with_args_map() doesn't need a similar fix
> > as cells_name isn't NULL there.
> >
> > Affected drivers are:
> > - drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > - drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > - drivers/clk/ti/clk-dra7-atl.c
> > - drivers/hwmon/ibmpowernv.c
> > - drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-demux-pinctrl.c
> > - drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> > - drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/mac.c
> > - drivers/opp/of.c
> > - drivers/perf/arm_dsu_pmu.c
> > - drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c
> > - drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > - drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
> > - sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
> > - sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
> > - sound/soc/meson/axg-card.c
> > - sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
> > - sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
> >
> > Thanks to Geert Uytterhoeven for reporting the issue, Peter Rosin for
> > helping pinpoint the actual problem and the testers for confirming this
> > fix.
> >
> > Fixes: e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to non-negative cell_count")
> > Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>
> > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 08:01:05AM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > > On 2019-09-18 08:38, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_parse_phandle_with_args);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1765,6 +1779,18 @@ int of_count_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na
> > > > struct of_phandle_iterator it;
> > > > int rc, cur_index = 0;
> > > >
> > > > + /* If cells_name is NULL we assume a cell count of 0 */
> > > > + if (cells_name == NULL) {
> > >
> > > A couple of nits.
> > >
> > > I don't know if there are other considerations, but in the previous two
> > > hunks you use !cells_name instead of comparing explicitly with NULL.
> > > Personally, I find the shorter form more readable, and in the name of
> > > consistency bla bla...
> >
> > Ack, changed to !cells_name here, too.
> >
> > >
> > > Also, the comment explaining this NULL-check didn't really make sense
> > > to me until I realized that knowing the cell count to be zero makes
> > > counting trivial. Something along those lines should perhaps be in the
> > > comment?
> >
> > You're right, I extended the comment a bit.
> >
> > > But as I said, these are nits. Feel free to ignore.
> >
> > I considered resending already anyhow as I fatfingerd my email address.
> > this is fixed now, too. Additionally I fixed a typo in one of the
> > comments.
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Uwe
> >
> > drivers/of/base.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Can I get a proper patch please.
I don't understand what is wrong with my patch. Can you please expand
what you are missing? I just tried to git-am it and the result looks
fine.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:19:54PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Can I get a proper patch please.
>
> I don't understand what is wrong with my patch. Can you please expand
> what you are missing? I just tried to git-am it and the result looks
> fine.
I see that the commit this patch is fixing isn't in Linus' tree yet. Do
you want instead of this commit fixing the previous one a single good
patch that replaces e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback
to non-negative cell_count")?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:47:48 +0200, Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= wrote:
> Before commit e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to
> non-negative cell_count") the iterator functions calling
> of_for_each_phandle assumed a cell count of 0 if cells_name was NULL.
> This corner case was missed when implementing the fallback logic in
> e42ee61017f5 and resulted in an endless loop.
>
> Restore the old behaviour of of_count_phandle_with_args() and
> of_parse_phandle_with_args() and add a check to
> of_phandle_iterator_init() to prevent a similar failure as a safety
> precaution. of_parse_phandle_with_args_map() doesn't need a similar fix
> as cells_name isn't NULL there.
>
> Affected drivers are:
> - drivers/base/power/domain.c
> - drivers/base/power/domain.c
> - drivers/clk/ti/clk-dra7-atl.c
> - drivers/hwmon/ibmpowernv.c
> - drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-demux-pinctrl.c
> - drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> - drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/mac.c
> - drivers/opp/of.c
> - drivers/perf/arm_dsu_pmu.c
> - drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c
> - drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> - drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
> - sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
> - sound/soc/fsl/imx-audmix.c
> - sound/soc/meson/axg-card.c
> - sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
> - sound/soc/samsung/tm2_wm5110.c
>
> Thanks to Geert Uytterhoeven for reporting the issue, Peter Rosin for
> helping pinpoint the actual problem and the testers for confirming this
> fix.
>
> Fixes: e42ee61017f5 ("of: Let of_for_each_phandle fallback to non-negative cell_count")
> Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 08:01:05AM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2019-09-18 08:38, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_parse_phandle_with_args);
> > >
> > > @@ -1765,6 +1779,18 @@ int of_count_phandle_with_args(const struct device_node *np, const char *list_na
> > > struct of_phandle_iterator it;
> > > int rc, cur_index = 0;
> > >
> > > + /* If cells_name is NULL we assume a cell count of 0 */
> > > + if (cells_name == NULL) {
> >
> > A couple of nits.
> >
> > I don't know if there are other considerations, but in the previous two
> > hunks you use !cells_name instead of comparing explicitly with NULL.
> > Personally, I find the shorter form more readable, and in the name of
> > consistency bla bla...
>
> Ack, changed to !cells_name here, too.
>
> >
> > Also, the comment explaining this NULL-check didn't really make sense
> > to me until I realized that knowing the cell count to be zero makes
> > counting trivial. Something along those lines should perhaps be in the
> > comment?
>
> You're right, I extended the comment a bit.
>
> > But as I said, these are nits. Feel free to ignore.
>
> I considered resending already anyhow as I fatfingerd my email address.
> this is fixed now, too. Additionally I fixed a typo in one of the
> comments.
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> drivers/of/base.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
Applied, thanks.
Rob