Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable cros-ec and battery driver
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Date: Fri May 27 2016 - 04:37:42 EST
On 05/25/2016 09:44 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 1:26 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 25/05/16 17:36, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>> I can see that getting the temperature could work. I would point out
>>> that I don't see any recent changes to bq27xxx or the power_supply_core
>>> that would imply this is a regression. My guess is that up until now,
>>> for devices that support the TEMP property, CONFIG_THERMAL isn't been
>>> So here are my thoughts.... we can do 2 things here:
>>> 1) patch bq27xxx in some manner that will allow the bq27xxx driver to
>>> work report the temp during register (such as above patch).
>>> 2) Patch the core to avoid using get_property callback during registration.
>> I wonder if #2 will cause other problems for other devices as this
>> really changes the functionality.
>>> I think for our immediate concern and crash, #1 is fine. It will work
>>> and is fine. I however think this is just a symptom of the larger issue
>>> (#2). In this case, the problem we see is that di->bat is used before it
>>> is set, and we have a way around it. However, for EVERY device that
>>> registers and has TEMP prop (and CONFIG_THERMAL enabled) it is going to
>>> receive a call with its relative di->bat uninitialized too.
>> I don't think we are understanding each other and I still think that
>> this could be specific to the bq27xxx. And here is why ...
>> The power supply driver is going to receive a call to it's
>> ->get_property() function with a *VALID* pointer to the power_supply
>> structure, *psy. When initialised, di->bat == psy (assuming bq27xxx
>> naming) and so in other words, they point to the same thing. Therefore,
>> in the normal case, you should not need to access di->bat from within
>> ->get_property() because you already have a valid pointer to the
>> power_supply structure, *psy.
>> So the ONLY problem would be IF the ->get_property function calls
>> power_supply_get_drvdata() to get a pointer to the drvdata, *di, and
>> then dereferences and uses the pointer, di->bat, which may NOT be
>> initialised yet. I am wondering how likely this is as it seems a bit
>> daft to do this, unless you are doing something like the bq27xxx driver
>> is attempting to do.
>> Again IMO the problem is related to how the bq27xxx driver has
>> implemented the status update.
> And you might be completely correct, that is something that can only
> happen specifically with the bq27xxx driver. In which case, making the
> fix there should be the fix. I just know from the commit log (and some
> previous work with power supply drivers) that the case of get_property
> being called during registration has caused problems before. That's why
> I am trying to make sure we cover the generic case if it exists. Using
> scheduled work is common for power_supplies to regularly update their
> As for your proposed patches for bq27xxx, I think the latest one you
> suggested (@12:36PM EST) with the change for
> battery_update->battery_poll as well makes the most sense for bq27xxx. I
> would like to point out though that if we patch this, the cache won't be
> populated for the first TEMP request, which has the same end effect as
> the patch I proposed to power_supply_read_temp. I believe both will
> return 0 for the temp.
> I think that patch would work just fine in place of what I suggested for
> this specific crash.
Indeed I was struggling with similar issue in bq27x00_battery. The issue
was introduced by... me :( when moving the ownership of power supply
structure from driver to the core. However IMHO my change exposed the
fundamental problem with power supply.
Anyway a fix for this issue was:
7f1a57fdd6cb6e7b (power_supply: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference on
AFAIU, this fix no longer fixes all the issues, right?
As for the fundamental problem, the power supply core should not call
back the driver (get_property()) until the probe ends. Even if the
di->bat was initialized, some other fields of driver could not be set
yet. In general, the probe did not end so we should avoid calling driver
In this particular problem:
1. Fix for the driver (!di->bat) is okay... but it won't solve the
problem in general.
2. I think the core should handle it somehow...