[U-Boot] [PATCH] MMC: Do not write to mmc_uclass_priv if it was not allocated

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On 1 July 2016 at 04:37, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung at samsung.com> wrote:
> On 07/01/2016 04:28 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Meteusz,
>>
>> On 30 June 2016 at 12:18, Mateusz Kulikowski
>> <mateusz.kulikowski at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 29.06.2016 05:27, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>>
>>>> On 25 June 2016 at 14:57, Matt Corallo <linux at bluematt.me> wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Corallo <git at bluematt.me>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
>>>>> index aabfc71..eba20f0 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
>>>>> @@ -1734,7 +1734,8 @@ int mmc_init(struct mmc *mmc)
>>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_DM_MMC
>>>>>         struct mmc_uclass_priv *upriv = dev_get_uclass_priv(mmc->dev);
>>>>>
>>>>> -       upriv->mmc = mmc;
>>>>> +       if (upriv)
>>>>> +               upriv->mmc = mmc;
>>>>>  #endif
>>>>>         if (mmc->has_init)
>>>>>                 return 0;
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.1.4
>>>>
>>>> Can you please add a commit message explaining why this is needed and
>>>> what it fixes?  How can mmc_init() be called before the MMC device is
>>>> there? Is this related to this patch?
>>>>
>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/640735/
>>>
>>> It's related in a way that it fixed crash of dragonboard before I submitted my patch :)
>>>
>>> Not sure if it meant to fix dragonboard or some other board.
>>>
>>> Although - imho - it's nice to make check like that.. or at least some kind of assert.
>
> I have just one question..Maybe it's not related with this patch..
> But i saw other driver did that upriv->mmc is assigned to mmc in each drivers.
>
> What's difference with "upriv->mmc = mmc" in mmc.c?
>
> ./drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c:972:  upriv->mmc = priv->mmc;
> ./drivers/mmc/mmc.c:1606:       upriv->mmc = mmc;
> ./drivers/mmc/mmc-uclass.c:91:  return upriv->mmc;
> ./drivers/mmc/msm_sdhci.c:147:  upriv->mmc = host->mmc;
> ./drivers/mmc/omap_hsmmc.c:830: upriv->mmc = mmc;
> ./drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c:114:    upriv->mmc = host->mmc;
> ./drivers/mmc/socfpga_dw_mmc.c:110:     upriv->mmc = host->mmc;
> ./drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c:727:        upriv->mmc = priv->mmc;
> ./drivers/mmc/zynq_sdhci.c:52:  upriv->mmc = host->mmc;
>
> Is it duplicated?
> (I didn't see in more detail.)
>
> Best Regards,
> Jaehoon Chung

I am actually not happy with how this is at present. It should be
handled by a function call. If you'd like to look at this please do,
otherwise I will take a pass at it. It should be clear at this point
what we need.

>
>>
>> An assert() would be fine with me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Simon
>> _______________________________________________
>> U-Boot mailing list
>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>>
>>
>>
>


Regards,
Simon