Re: [PATCH][V2] of/address: check for invalid range.cpu_addr

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 5:43 AM Colin King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Currently invalid CPU addresses are not being sanity checked resulting in
> SATA setup failure on a SynQuacer SC2A11 development machine. The original
> check was removed by and earlier commit, so add a sanity check back in
> to avoid this regression.
>
> Fixes: 7a8b64d17e35 ("of/address: use range parser for of_dma_get_range")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/of/address.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
> index 590493e04b01..6ffbf7b99e92 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/address.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/address.c
> @@ -985,6 +985,10 @@ int of_dma_get_range(struct device_node *np, u64 *dma_addr, u64 *paddr, u64 *siz
>                         /* Don't error out as we'd break some existing DTs */
>                         continue;
>                 }
> +               if (range.cpu_addr == OF_BAD_ADDR) {
> +                       pr_err("Translation of CPU address failed on node (%pOF)\n", node);
> +                       continue;
> +               }
>                 dma_offset = range.cpu_addr - range.bus_addr;
>
>                 /* Take lower and upper limits */
> --
>
> V2: print message using pr_err and don't print range.cpu_addr as it's always
>     going to be OF_BAD_ADDR so the information is pointless.

Shouldn't we print the bus_addr like the original message did?
Otherwise, we don't really know what entry is problematic.

Rob