Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <626bff7e.1c69fb81.bdf89.4da7@mx.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:06:19 +0200
From:   Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: qcom: clk-krait: add hw_parent check for
 div2_round_rate
References: <20220429120108.9396-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20220429120108.9396-4-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <b7de49e0-c0cf-5062-8426-dcb54272d350@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b7de49e0-c0cf-5062-8426-dcb54272d350@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 05:53:32PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 29/04/2022 15:01, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > Check if hw_parent is present before calculating the round_rate to
> > prevent kernel panic. On error -EINVAL is reported.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
> 
> I see that other clock drivers do not perform this check. Which path leads
> to this oops?
>

This comes from qsdk patches so I apologize in advance about this.

Anyway I'm checking the code and krait-cc is the only user of
krait_div2_clk_ops. That user have as parent only hfpll_something that
is declared by gcc. Now hfpll can also be declared in dts with a
dedicated driver so I wonder if the problem is there in the case when
hfpll is declared in dts and is probed after krait-cc. This is not the
case for ipq8064 but I wonder if qsdk have other krait based device that
have a configuration with hfpll declared in dts.

In short you are right and in our current code the check is uselss and
I'm positive about dropping this patch but I do wonder if downstream
there is an actual use of this. Don't know how to proceed. Any hint?

> > ---
> >   drivers/clk/qcom/clk-krait.c | 7 ++++++-
> >   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-krait.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-krait.c
> > index 90046428693c..6c367ad6506a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-krait.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-krait.c
> > @@ -84,7 +84,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(krait_mux_clk_ops);
> >   static long krait_div2_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> >   				  unsigned long *parent_rate)
> >   {
> > -	*parent_rate = clk_hw_round_rate(clk_hw_get_parent(hw), rate * 2);
> > +	struct clk_hw *hw_parent = clk_hw_get_parent(hw);
> > +
> > +	if (!hw_parent)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	*parent_rate = clk_hw_round_rate(hw_parent, rate * 2);
> >   	return DIV_ROUND_UP(*parent_rate, 2);
> >   }
> 
> 
> -- 
> With best wishes
> Dmitry

-- 
	Ansuel