Re: [PATCH] mfd: mt6360: Fix register driver NULL pointer by add driver name

[Gene Chen]

Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> æ 2020å6æ9æ éä äå8:53åéï
>
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2020, Gene Chen wrote:
>
> > Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> æ 2020å6æ9æ éä äå3:28åéï
> > >
> > > On Mon, 08 Jun 2020, Gene Chen wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Gene Chen <gene_chen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > accidentally remove driver name when
> > > > replace probe by probe_new in add mt6360 mfd driver patch v4
> > > >
> > > > [  121.243012] EAX: c2a8bc64 EBX: 00000000 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
> > > > [  121.243012] ESI: c2a8bc79 EDI: 00000000 EBP: e54bdea8 ESP: e54bdea0
> > > > [  121.243012] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068 EFLAGS: 00010286
> > > > [  121.243012] CR0: 80050033 CR2: 00000000 CR3: 02ec3000 CR4: 000006b0
> > > > [  121.243012] Call Trace:
> > > > [  121.243012]  kset_find_obj+0x3d/0xc0
> > > > [  121.243012]  driver_find+0x16/0x40
> > > > [  121.243012]  driver_register+0x49/0x100
> > > > [  121.243012]  ? i2c_for_each_dev+0x39/0x50
> > > > [  121.243012]  ? __process_new_adapter+0x20/0x20
> > > > [  121.243012]  ? cht_wc_driver_init+0x11/0x11
> > > > [  121.243012]  i2c_register_driver+0x30/0x80
> > > > [  121.243012]  ? intel_lpss_pci_driver_init+0x16/0x16
> > > > [  121.243012]  mt6360_pmu_driver_init+0xf/0x11
> > > > [  121.243012]  do_one_initcall+0x33/0x1a0
> > > > [  121.243012]  ? parse_args+0x1eb/0x3d0
> > > > [  121.243012]  ? __might_sleep+0x31/0x90
> > > > [  121.243012]  ? kernel_init_freeable+0x10a/0x17f
> > > > [  121.243012]  kernel_init_freeable+0x12c/0x17f
> > > > [  121.243012]  ? rest_init+0x110/0x110
> > > > [  121.243012]  kernel_init+0xb/0x100
> > > > [  121.243012]  ? schedule_tail_wrapper+0x9/0xc
> > > > [  121.243012]  ret_from_fork+0x19/0x24
> > > > [  121.243012] Modules linked in:
> > > > [  121.243012] CR2: 0000000000000000
> > > > [  121.243012] random: get_random_bytes called from init_oops_id+0x3a/0x40 with crng_init=0
> > > > [  121.243012] ---[ end trace 38a803400f1a2bee ]---
> > > > [  121.243012] EIP: strcmp+0x11/0x30
> > >
> > > How did this driver ever work for you?
> >
> > i ask my coworker help me verify.
> > i will check the patch myself, sincerely apologies for this.
>
> What does this mean?
>
> Are you saying that for all 10 versions of this patch submission, it
> has never been tested?  And despite being authored by you and
> submitted by you, you have never actually boot tested the driver
> yourself?  Relying instead on your co-worker to conduct the testing,
> who failed to do so.  Is that really correct?
>

On carefully reading to the document how to upstream, I find that I
had full duty for verify patch i sent.
The fault is entirely mine and I deeply regret that it should have occurred.
I will always verify patch by meself before sending it.
I have already verfied sub-device adc/led/regulator done in Mediatek
phone and Hikey960 development board

> > > > Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <gene_chen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c | 1 +
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > > > index db8cdf5..e9cacc2 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > > > @@ -412,6 +412,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6360_pmu_of_id);
> > > >
> > > >  static struct i2c_driver mt6360_pmu_driver = {
> > > >       .driver = {
> > > > +             .name = "mt6360_pmu",
> > > >               .pm = &mt6360_pmu_pm_ops,
> > > >               .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(mt6360_pmu_of_id),
> > > >       },
> > >
>
> --
> Lee Jones [æçæ]
> Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
> Linaro.org â Open source software for Arm SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog