memory/tegra: Add missing of_node_get() in tegra_emc_find_node_by_ram_code

of_find_node_by_name() will decrease the refcount of its first arg and we need to add a of_node_put() to keep refcount balance.

Besides, during the 'for' loop execution, the refcount of 'np' will be automatically increased and decreased. There is no need to call of_node_put() again.

Signed-off-by Liang He <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20-emc.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20-emc.c +2 -0

index 25ba3c5e4ad6..e43a5f8e188e 100644
@@ -477,6 +477,7 @@ tegra_emc_find_node_by_ram_code(struct tegra_emc *emc)
 
 	ram_code = tegra_read_ram_code();
 
+	of_get_node(dev->of_node);
 	for (np = of_find_node_by_name(dev->of_node, "emc-tables"); np;
 	     np = of_find_node_by_name(np, "emc-tables")) {
 		err = of_property_read_u32(np, "nvidia,ram-code", &value);

@@ -484,6 +485,7 @@ tegra_emc_find_node_by_ram_code(struct tegra_emc *emc)
 			struct device_node *lpddr2_np;
 			bool cfg_mismatches = false;
 
+			of_node_get(np);
 			lpddr2_np = of_find_node_by_name(np, "lpddr2");
 			if (lpddr2_np) {
 				const struct lpddr2_info *info;

Quoted 2 lines · Liang He

of_find_node_by_name() will decrease the refcount of its first arg and we need to add a of_node_put() to keep refcount balance.

We do NOT need to add an of_node_put?

Anyway why do you add of_node_get which is not explained here?

Quoted 31 lines

Besides, during the 'for' loop execution, the refcount of 'np' will be automatically increased and decreased. There is no need to call of_node_put() again.

Signed-off-by Liang He <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20-emc.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20-emc.c +2 -0

index 25ba3c5e4ad6..e43a5f8e188e 100644
@@ -477,6 +477,7 @@ tegra_emc_find_node_by_ram_code(struct tegra_emc *emc)
 
 	ram_code = tegra_read_ram_code();
 
+	of_get_node(dev->of_node);
 	for (np = of_find_node_by_name(dev->of_node, "emc-tables"); np;
 	     np = of_find_node_by_name(np, "emc-tables")) {
 		err = of_property_read_u32(np, "nvidia,ram-code", &value);

@@ -484,6 +485,7 @@ tegra_emc_find_node_by_ram_code(struct tegra_emc *emc)
 			struct device_node *lpddr2_np;
 			bool cfg_mismatches = false;
 
+			of_node_get(np);
 			lpddr2_np = of_find_node_by_name(np, "lpddr2");
 			if (lpddr2_np) {
 				const struct lpddr2_info *info;

drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20-emc.c tegra_emc_find_node_by_ram_code(struct tegra_emc *emc) · line 528

Quoted 7 lines

drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20-emc.c +0 -1

@@ -521,7 +523,6 @@ tegra_emc_find_node_by_ram_code(struct tegra_emc *emc)
 			}
 
 			if (cfg_mismatches) {
-				of_node_put(np);
 				continue;
 			}
 		}

Best regards,
Krzysztof

of_find_node_by_name() will decrease the refcount of its first arg and we need to add a of_node_put() to keep refcount balance.

Besides, during the 'for' loop execution, the refcount of 'np' will be automatically increased and decreased. There is no need to call of_node_put() again.

Signed-off-by Liang He <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20-emc.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Quoted 12 lines · Liang He

of_find_node_by_name() will decrease the refcount of its first arg and we need to add a of_node_put() to keep refcount balance.

Besides, during the 'for' loop execution, the refcount of 'np' will be automatically increased and decreased. There is no need to call of_node_put() again.

Signed-off-by Liang He <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20-emc.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

The patch was not even compiled... I consider it harmful approach. NAK.
See: https://lwn.net/Articles/854645/

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Quoted 14 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski

Quoted 12 lines · Liang He

of_find_node_by_name() will decrease the refcount of its first arg and we need to add a of_node_put() to keep refcount balance.

Besides, during the 'for' loop execution, the refcount of 'np' will be automatically increased and decreased. There is no need to call of_node_put() again.

Signed-off-by Liang He <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20-emc.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Quoted 5 lines

The patch was not even compiled... I consider it harmful approach. NAK.
See: https://lwn.net/Articles/854645/

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Sorry, Krzysztof.

As the patch is so simple two lines , I thought I can handle it without compiling it.

Thanks very much for your notice about the article and I hope I have not done anyother harmful things.

And I will take care of my patch code in future no matter how simple it is.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 5 lines

The patch was not even compiled... I consider it harmful approach. NAK.
See: https://lwn.net/Articles/854645/

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Quoted 7 lines

Sorry, Krzysztof.

As the patch is so simple two lines , I thought I can handle it without compiling it.

Thanks very much for your notice about the article and I hope I have not done anyother harmful things.

And I will take care of my patch code in future no matter how simple it is.

Never send patches which were not built. It seems you didn't build them in the past either, even though setting up cross compile is trivial (few commands). QEMU is also an easy option.

Even though your contribution might be valuable, lack of building is a sign for me that approach is not serious, so I am not going to take risky code.

Quoted 23 lines · Liang He

Quoted 14 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski

Quoted 12 lines · Liang He

of_find_node_by_name() will decrease the refcount of its first arg and we need to add a of_node_put() to keep refcount balance.

Besides, during the 'for' loop execution, the refcount of 'np' will be automatically increased and decreased. There is no need to call of_node_put() again.

Signed-off-by Liang He <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20-emc.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Quoted 5 lines

The patch was not even compiled... I consider it harmful approach. NAK.
See: https://lwn.net/Articles/854645/

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Quoted 7 lines

Sorry, Krzysztof.

As the patch is so simple two lines , I thought I can handle it without compiling it.

Thanks very much for your notice about the article and I hope I have not done anyother harmful things.

And I will take care of my patch code in future no matter how simple it is.

Never send patches which were not built. It seems you didn't build them in the past either, even though setting up cross compile is trivial (few commands). QEMU is also an easy option.

Even though your contribution might be valuable, lack of building is a sign for me that approach is not serious, so I am not going to take risky code.

Best regards,
Krzysztof