Commit 7f8538eb authored by Viresh Kumar's avatar Viresh Kumar Committed by Rafael J. Wysocki

PM / OPP: Fix memory leak while adding duplicate OPPs

There are two types of duplicate OPPs that get different behavior from
the core:
A) An earlier OPP is marked 'available' and has same freq/voltages as
   the new one.
B) An earlier OPP with same frequency, but is marked 'unavailable' OR
   doesn't have same voltages as the new one.

The OPP core returns 0 for the first one, but -EEXIST for the second.

While the OPP core returns 0 for the first case, its callers don't free
the newly allocated OPP structure which isn't used anymore. Fix that by
returning -EBUSY instead of 0, but make the callers return 0 eventually.

As this isn't a critical fix, its not getting marked for stable kernel.
Signed-off-by: default avatarViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
parent 7a308bb3
...@@ -1067,6 +1067,16 @@ static bool _opp_supported_by_regulators(struct dev_pm_opp *opp, ...@@ -1067,6 +1067,16 @@ static bool _opp_supported_by_regulators(struct dev_pm_opp *opp,
return true; return true;
} }
/*
* Returns:
* 0: On success. And appropriate error message for duplicate OPPs.
* -EBUSY: For OPP with same freq/volt and is available. The callers of
* _opp_add() must return 0 if they receive -EBUSY from it. This is to make
* sure we don't print error messages unnecessarily if different parts of
* kernel try to initialize the OPP table.
* -EEXIST: For OPP with same freq but different volt or is unavailable. This
* should be considered an error by the callers of _opp_add().
*/
int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp *new_opp, int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp *new_opp,
struct opp_table *opp_table) struct opp_table *opp_table)
{ {
...@@ -1099,7 +1109,7 @@ int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp *new_opp, ...@@ -1099,7 +1109,7 @@ int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp *new_opp,
/* Should we compare voltages for all regulators here ? */ /* Should we compare voltages for all regulators here ? */
return opp->available && return opp->available &&
new_opp->supplies[0].u_volt == opp->supplies[0].u_volt ? 0 : -EEXIST; new_opp->supplies[0].u_volt == opp->supplies[0].u_volt ? -EBUSY : -EEXIST;
} }
new_opp->opp_table = opp_table; new_opp->opp_table = opp_table;
...@@ -1173,8 +1183,12 @@ int _opp_add_v1(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq, long u_volt, ...@@ -1173,8 +1183,12 @@ int _opp_add_v1(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq, long u_volt,
new_opp->dynamic = dynamic; new_opp->dynamic = dynamic;
ret = _opp_add(dev, new_opp, opp_table); ret = _opp_add(dev, new_opp, opp_table);
if (ret) if (ret) {
/* Don't return error for duplicate OPPs */
if (ret == -EBUSY)
ret = 0;
goto free_opp; goto free_opp;
}
mutex_unlock(&opp_table_lock); mutex_unlock(&opp_table_lock);
......
...@@ -327,8 +327,12 @@ static int _opp_add_static_v2(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np) ...@@ -327,8 +327,12 @@ static int _opp_add_static_v2(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np)
goto free_opp; goto free_opp;
ret = _opp_add(dev, new_opp, opp_table); ret = _opp_add(dev, new_opp, opp_table);
if (ret) if (ret) {
/* Don't return error for duplicate OPPs */
if (ret == -EBUSY)
ret = 0;
goto free_opp; goto free_opp;
}
/* OPP to select on device suspend */ /* OPP to select on device suspend */
if (of_property_read_bool(np, "opp-suspend")) { if (of_property_read_bool(np, "opp-suspend")) {
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment