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;
Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2023 13:40:04 +0000
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: microchip: mpfs-ccc: Use devm_kasprintf() for
 allocating formatted strings
Message-ID: <Y7WBtMmLzYvk60tD@spud>
References: <f904fd28b2087d1463ea65f059924e3b1acc193c.1672764239.git.geert+renesas@glider.be>
 <Y7RmnswYX+1g5vci@spud>
 <CAMuHMdX--sfenmb7WMgpe5045YfR7UjXAM-T9ZNZO3eTN_R=bg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Ruz8Lc2+jwA+2Ea0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdX--sfenmb7WMgpe5045YfR7UjXAM-T9ZNZO3eTN_R=bg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


--Ruz8Lc2+jwA+2Ea0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 02:26:53PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Conor,
>=20
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 6:32 PM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:

> > I half wonder if this should actually have a fixes tag too. Since it
> > used what came after the @ in $full_name, it'd be possible to create
> > (an incorrect) DTS that would lead to a clash between pll names &
> > therefore probe would fail.
> > The tag would be:
> > Fixes: d39fb172760e ("clk: microchip: add PolarFire SoC fabric clock su=
pport")
>=20
> But I don't change any of that in my patch?
> /me confused.

The numbers in there were chosen to fit exactly what is in mpfs.dtsi
(IOW the correct node address), so doing
@@ -201,14 +200,13 @@ static int mpfs_ccc_register_plls(struct device *dev,=
 struct mpfs_ccc_pll_hw_clo
=20
 	for (unsigned int i =3D 0; i < num_clks; i++) {
 		struct mpfs_ccc_pll_hw_clock *pll_hw =3D &pll_hws[i];
-		char *name =3D devm_kzalloc(dev, 18, GFP_KERNEL);
=20
-		if (!name)
+		pll_hw->name =3D devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, "ccc%s_pll%u",
+					      strchrnul(dev->of_node->full_name, '@'), i);
+		if (!pll_hw->name)
 			return -ENOMEM;
=20
 		pll_hw->base =3D data->pll_base[i];
-		snprintf(name, 18, "ccc%s_pll%u", strchrnul(dev->of_node->full_name, '@'=
), i);
-		pll_hw->name =3D (const char *)name;
 		pll_hw->hw.init =3D CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS_DATA_FIXED_SIZE(pll_hw->name,
 								      pll_hw->parents,
 								      &mpfs_ccc_pll_ops, 0);

means that we no longer have to worry that someone would provide a
device tree with a node address that would make "ccc<node_address>_pll<N>"
exceed 18 characters. If that happened, the <N> would be cut off & both
pll 0 & 1 would be named identically. If that happens, pll1 would fail
to register.

Or am I misunderstanding something? Probably am..

Thanks,
Conor.


--Ruz8Lc2+jwA+2Ea0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCY7WBtAAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0nJlAP0ehynrTFuwhxiPLMmtmC70nbFReqFv+jOE3ZccM7+A0AD/QybFXMjcM0ug
EYLfXR2feFYwXb7Mrqs0dstLrI08vQg=
=Z1hJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Ruz8Lc2+jwA+2Ea0--