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

From: Lee Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:53:05 +0100

On Tue, 09 Jun 2020, Gene Chen wrote:

> Lee Jones <[email-masked]> 於 2020年6月9日 週二 上午3:28寫道：
> >
> > On Mon, 08 Jun 2020, Gene Chen wrote:
> >
> > > From: Gene Chen <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > > 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?

> > > Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <[email-masked]>
> > > ---
> > >  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 [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel