Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756488AbcKWHuj (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 02:50:39 -0500 Received: from lelnx194.ext.ti.com ([198.47.27.80]:17836 "EHLO lelnx194.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753974AbcKWHuh (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 02:50:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] of: base: add support to get machine compatible string To: Sudeep Holla , Bartosz Golaszewski , Kevin Hilman , Michael Turquette , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , Mark Rutland , Peter Ujfalusi , Russell King References: <1479811311-3080-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> <1479811311-3080-2-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> <5ce9fb9f-459a-562b-2e9f-85d35f9ec035@arm.com> <67a3c2c7-0cb9-9764-2710-6ee66fc4dde4@ti.com> CC: LKML , arm-soc , linux-drm , linux-devicetree , Jyri Sarha , Tomi Valkeinen , David Airlie , Laurent Pinchart , Robin Murphy From: Sekhar Nori Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:19:47 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1552 Lines: 43 On Tuesday 22 November 2016 09:16 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Hi Sekhar, > > On 22/11/16 15:06, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> Hi Sudeep, >> >> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 04:23 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 22/11/16 10:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>>> Add a function allowing to retrieve the compatible string of the root >>>> node of the device tree. >>>> >>> >>> Rob has queued [1] and it's in -next today. You can reuse that if you >>> are planning to target this for v4.11 or just use open coding in your >>> driver for v4.10 and target this move for v4.11 to avoid cross tree >>> dependencies as I already mentioned in your previous thread. >> >> I dont have your original patch in my mailbox, but I wonder if >> returning a pointer to property string for a node whose reference has >> already been released is safe to do? Probably not an issue for the root >> node, but still feels counter-intuitive. >> > > I am not sure if I understand the issue here. Are you referring a case > where of_root is freed ? Yes, right, thats what I was hinting at. Since you are giving up the reference to the device node before the function returns, the user can be left with a dangling reference. > Also I have seen drivers today just using this pointer directly, but > it's better to copy the string(I just saw this done in one case) Hmm, the reference is given up before the API returns, so I doubt copying it later is any additional benefit. I suspect this is a theoretical issue though since root device node is probably never freed. Thanks, Sekhar