Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: fix DT port device name

From: Sebastian Hesselbarth
Date: Sun Jul 07 2013 - 17:59:00 EST


On 07/07/2013 11:43 PM, Jonas Gorski wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 22:33:51 +0200
Sebastian Hesselbarth<sebastian.hesselbarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Device tree support added to Marvell MV643xx ethernet driver registers
port devices from port device nodes found on the corresponding controller
node. The current port device name will cause the second controller to
fail on registration because of two identical device names. This fixes
the issue by taking the device node's name also as port device name.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth<sebastian.hesselbarth@xxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Jonas Gorski<jogo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Cc: Lennert Buytenhek<buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jonas Gorski<jogo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c
index 6495bea..1f3a03d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c
@@ -2521,7 +2521,7 @@ static int mv643xx_eth_shared_of_add_port(struct platform_device *pdev,
of_property_read_u32(pnp, "duplex",&ppd.duplex);
}

- ppdev = platform_device_alloc(MV643XX_ETH_NAME, ppd.port_number);
+ ppdev = platform_device_alloc(pnp->name, ppd.port_number);
if (!ppdev)
return -ENOMEM;
ppdev->dev.coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);

This breaks ethernet completely, as there is no platform driver
registered for pnp->name ("ethernetX-port"), only for MV643XX_ETH_NAME.

Jonas,

I asked you to test the above earlier today. You said this would fix
the issue. I have no Kirkwood board with two ethernet's available, so
I really needed on your help here.

Please prepare a patch yourself, that fixes the issue.

Sebastian

Also since I didn't see a patch for it and no mentioning of it:

There's still one further issue from having two ethernet-ports with
port_number 0, it causes a device leak:

static struct platform_device *port_platdev[3];

mv643xx_eth_shared_of_add_port()
{
...
port_platdev[ppd.port_number] = ppdev;
...
}

The second port at 0 will overwrite the first and thus will never be
deleted in

mv643xx_eth_shared_of_remove()
{
...
for (n = 0; n< 3; n++) {
platform_device_del(port_platdev[n]);
port_platdev[n] = NULL;
}
}

I doubt a insmod-rmmod-insmod will go well in that case ;-)


Regards
Jonas

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/