Use of_property_present() to test for property presence rather than
of_get_property(). This is part of a larger effort to remove callers
of of_get_property() and similar functions. of_get_property() leaks
the DT property data pointer which is a problem for dynamically
allocated nodes which may be freed.

The code was also incorrectly assigning the return value to a 'struct
property' pointer. It didn't matter as "prop" was never dereferenced.

Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c b/drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c
index 2b59ef61dda2..7caaf89f3bf2 100644
--- a/drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c
+++ b/drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c
@@ -2569,14 +2569,12 @@ static const struct sysc_dts_quirk sysc_dts_quirks[] = {
 static void sysc_parse_dts_quirks(struct sysc *ddata, struct device_node *np,
 				  bool is_child)
 {
-	const struct property *prop;
-	int i, len;
+	int i;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sysc_dts_quirks); i++) {
 		const char *name = sysc_dts_quirks[i].name;
 
-		prop = of_get_property(np, name, &len);
-		if (!prop)
+		if (!of_property_present(np, name))
 			continue;
 
 		ddata->cfg.quirks |= sysc_dts_quirks[i].mask;
-- 
2.43.0

On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 13:12:39 -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> Use of_property_present() to test for property presence rather than
> of_get_property(). This is part of a larger effort to remove callers
> of of_get_property() and similar functions. of_get_property() leaks
> the DT property data pointer which is a problem for dynamically
> allocated nodes which may be freed.
> 
> The code was also incorrectly assigning the return value to a 'struct
> property' pointer. It didn't matter as "prop" was never dereferenced.
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] bus: ti-sysc: Use of_property_present()
      commit: 0070dc29c85f0859a6071844b88fca6bce2974e4

Best regards,
-- 
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>

On 31/07/2024 22:12, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> Use of_property_present() to test for property presence rather than
> of_get_property(). This is part of a larger effort to remove callers
> of of_get_property() and similar functions. of_get_property() leaks
> the DT property data pointer which is a problem for dynamically
> allocated nodes which may be freed.
> 
> The code was also incorrectly assigning the return value to a 'struct
> property' pointer. It didn't matter as "prop" was never dereferenced.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>

Reviewed by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>

Hi Roger,

Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org> writes:

> On 31/07/2024 22:12, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
>> Use of_property_present() to test for property presence rather than
>> of_get_property(). This is part of a larger effort to remove callers
>> of of_get_property() and similar functions. of_get_property() leaks
>> the DT property data pointer which is a problem for dynamically
>> allocated nodes which may be freed.
>> 
>> The code was also incorrectly assigning the return value to a 'struct
>> property' pointer. It didn't matter as "prop" was never dereferenced.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
>
> Reviewed by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>

just FYI, missing a '-' in your Reviewed-by, which means tools like b4
will not spot it.  I added it manually this time cuz I happened to
notice it was missing.

Kevin

Hi Kevin,

On 05/08/2024 20:36, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Roger,
> 
> Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org> writes:
> 
>> On 31/07/2024 22:12, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
>>> Use of_property_present() to test for property presence rather than
>>> of_get_property(). This is part of a larger effort to remove callers
>>> of of_get_property() and similar functions. of_get_property() leaks
>>> the DT property data pointer which is a problem for dynamically
>>> allocated nodes which may be freed.
>>>
>>> The code was also incorrectly assigning the return value to a 'struct
>>> property' pointer. It didn't matter as "prop" was never dereferenced.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
>>
>> Reviewed by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
> 
> just FYI, missing a '-' in your Reviewed-by, which means tools like b4
> will not spot it.  I added it manually this time cuz I happened to
> notice it was missing.

Sorry, my bad. Thanks for fixing this up.

-- 
cheers,
-roger