usb: ehci-orion: Handle errors of clk_prepare_enable() in probe

Message ID 20210825170902.11234-1-novikov@ispras.ru
State New
Headers show
Series
  • usb: ehci-orion: Handle errors of clk_prepare_enable() in probe
Related show

Commit Message

Evgeny Novikov Aug. 25, 2021, 5:09 p.m.
ehci_orion_drv_probe() did not account for possible errors of
clk_prepare_enable() that in particular could cause invocation of
clk_disable_unprepare() on clocks that were not prepared/enabled yet,
e.g. in remove or on handling errors of usb_add_hcd() in probe. Though,
there were several patches fixing different issues with clocks in this
driver, they did not solve this problem.

Add handling of errors of clk_prepare_enable() in ehci_orion_drv_probe()
to avoid calls of clk_disable_unprepare() without previous successful
invocation of clk_prepare_enable().

Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).

Fixes: 8c869edaee07 ("ARM: Orion: EHCI: Add support for enabling clocks")
Signed-off-by: Evgeny Novikov <novikov@ispras.ru>
Co-developed-by: Kirill Shilimanov <kirill.shilimanov@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Kirill Shilimanov <kirill.shilimanov@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Andrew Lunn Aug. 25, 2021, 5:33 p.m. | #1
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 08:09:02PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:
> ehci_orion_drv_probe() did not account for possible errors of
> clk_prepare_enable()

Hi Evgeny

Your patch looks good.

Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>

At the time this was added, clk_prepare_enable() could not actually
fail, the clocks are built in, there was no error path that could
trigger. I've no idea if this is still true, so please do have this
patch merged.

      Andrew
Evgeny Novikov Aug. 26, 2021, 1:30 p.m. | #2
Hi Alan,

On 25.08.2021 20:29, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 08:09:02PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:

>> ehci_orion_drv_probe() did not account for possible errors of

>> clk_prepare_enable() that in particular could cause invocation of

>> clk_disable_unprepare() on clocks that were not prepared/enabled yet,

>> e.g. in remove or on handling errors of usb_add_hcd() in probe. Though,

>> there were several patches fixing different issues with clocks in this

>> driver, they did not solve this problem.

>>

>> Add handling of errors of clk_prepare_enable() in ehci_orion_drv_probe()

>> to avoid calls of clk_disable_unprepare() without previous successful

>> invocation of clk_prepare_enable().

>>

>> Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).

>>

>> Fixes: 8c869edaee07 ("ARM: Orion: EHCI: Add support for enabling clocks")

>> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Novikov <novikov@ispras.ru>

>> Co-developed-by: Kirill Shilimanov <kirill.shilimanov@huawei.com>

>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Shilimanov <kirill.shilimanov@huawei.com>

>> ---

> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>

>

> Do you intend to submit patches for the other EHCI drivers that don't

> check for errors in clk_prepare_enable()?  It looks like

> ehci-atmel.c, ehci-mv.c, and ehci-spear.c all need some attention.

>

> The same is true for a bunch of the OHCI drivers: ohci-at91.c,

> ohci-exynos.c, ohci-s3c2410.c, and ohci-spear.c.

>

> Didn't the Linux Driver Verification project identify this problem in

> all of these drivers?

Our verification framework report numerous issues like the one for which 
I sent the given patch. There are many warnings for different USB 
drivers and other types of device drivers as well. We sent several 
patches that were acknowledged by the developers already, though, after 
the Andrew's reply [1] I have doubts that we need to treat these 
warnings as potential bugs and fix them. The verification framework 
performs static analysis in a way that I described before [2]. Regarding 
the clock API it uses such models of clk_prepare() and clk_enable() that 
can fail independently on underlying hardware since is not easy to 
either model all such hardware or try to relate and consider 
corresponding drivers in addition to drivers using clocks at 
verification. Thus, potentially the verification framework can produce 
warnings for all drivers that invoke clk_prepare(), clk_enable() or 
clk_prepare_enable(), but do not check for their return values.

I look forward whether you will confirm that it makes sense to handle 
errors from mentioned functions anyway or it would be better not to sent 
such bug reports unless we will be strictly sure that they can happen. 
In the former case it would be better if somebody will teach built-in 
Linux kernel static analyzers to detect these issues on a regular basis.

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/25/794
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/17/239

Best regards,
Evgeny Novikov
> Alan Stern

>

>>   drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c | 8 ++++++--

>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

>>

>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c

>> index a319b1df3011..3626758b3e2a 100644

>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c

>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c

>> @@ -264,8 +264,11 @@ static int ehci_orion_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)

>>   	 * the clock does not exists.

>>   	 */

>>   	priv->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);

>> -	if (!IS_ERR(priv->clk))

>> -		clk_prepare_enable(priv->clk);

>> +	if (!IS_ERR(priv->clk)) {

>> +		err = clk_prepare_enable(priv->clk);

>> +		if (err)

>> +			goto err_put_hcd;

>> +	}

>>   

>>   	priv->phy = devm_phy_optional_get(&pdev->dev, "usb");

>>   	if (IS_ERR(priv->phy)) {

>> @@ -311,6 +314,7 @@ static int ehci_orion_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)

>>   err_dis_clk:

>>   	if (!IS_ERR(priv->clk))

>>   		clk_disable_unprepare(priv->clk);

>> +err_put_hcd:

>>   	usb_put_hcd(hcd);

>>   err:

>>   	dev_err(&pdev->dev, "init %s fail, %d\n",

>> -- 

>> 2.26.2

>>
Alan Stern Aug. 26, 2021, 3:24 p.m. | #3
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 04:30:22PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:
> Hi Alan,

> 

> On 25.08.2021 20:29, Alan Stern wrote:

> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 08:09:02PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:

> > > ehci_orion_drv_probe() did not account for possible errors of

> > > clk_prepare_enable() that in particular could cause invocation of

> > > clk_disable_unprepare() on clocks that were not prepared/enabled yet,

> > > e.g. in remove or on handling errors of usb_add_hcd() in probe. Though,

> > > there were several patches fixing different issues with clocks in this

> > > driver, they did not solve this problem.

> > > 

> > > Add handling of errors of clk_prepare_enable() in ehci_orion_drv_probe()

> > > to avoid calls of clk_disable_unprepare() without previous successful

> > > invocation of clk_prepare_enable().

> > > 

> > > Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).

> > > 

> > > Fixes: 8c869edaee07 ("ARM: Orion: EHCI: Add support for enabling clocks")

> > > Signed-off-by: Evgeny Novikov <novikov@ispras.ru>

> > > Co-developed-by: Kirill Shilimanov <kirill.shilimanov@huawei.com>

> > > Signed-off-by: Kirill Shilimanov <kirill.shilimanov@huawei.com>

> > > ---

> > Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>

> > 

> > Do you intend to submit patches for the other EHCI drivers that don't

> > check for errors in clk_prepare_enable()?  It looks like

> > ehci-atmel.c, ehci-mv.c, and ehci-spear.c all need some attention.

> > 

> > The same is true for a bunch of the OHCI drivers: ohci-at91.c,

> > ohci-exynos.c, ohci-s3c2410.c, and ohci-spear.c.

> > 

> > Didn't the Linux Driver Verification project identify this problem in

> > all of these drivers?

> Our verification framework report numerous issues like the one for which I

> sent the given patch. There are many warnings for different USB drivers and

> other types of device drivers as well. We sent several patches that were

> acknowledged by the developers already, though, after the Andrew's reply [1]

> I have doubts that we need to treat these warnings as potential bugs and fix

> them. The verification framework performs static analysis in a way that I

> described before [2]. Regarding the clock API it uses such models of

> clk_prepare() and clk_enable() that can fail independently on underlying

> hardware since is not easy to either model all such hardware or try to

> relate and consider corresponding drivers in addition to drivers using

> clocks at verification. Thus, potentially the verification framework can

> produce warnings for all drivers that invoke clk_prepare(), clk_enable() or

> clk_prepare_enable(), but do not check for their return values.

> 

> I look forward whether you will confirm that it makes sense to handle errors

> from mentioned functions anyway or it would be better not to sent such bug

> reports unless we will be strictly sure that they can happen. In the former

> case it would be better if somebody will teach built-in Linux kernel static

> analyzers to detect these issues on a regular basis.


I don't know whether these errors can occur or not.  To find out, you need to 
ask someone who knows more about the clock framework.

On the other hand, the fact that the functions do return an error code means 
that they expect callers to check its value.  In fact, whoever changed the API 
should have gone through all the callers to make sure they did so.

(Let's put it this way:  If those functions can return an error, we should 
check the return code.  If they can't return an error then they shouldn't be 
defined to return an int, so the API should be changed.)

So on the whole, I think making these changes would be a good thing.  At the 
very least, it will help make all the different EHCI and OHCI drivers 
consistent with each other.

Alan Stern

> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/25/794

> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/17/239

> 

> Best regards,

> Evgeny Novikov
Evgeny Novikov Aug. 26, 2021, 4:26 p.m. | #4
On 26.08.2021 18:24, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 04:30:22PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:

>> Hi Alan,

>>

>> On 25.08.2021 20:29, Alan Stern wrote:

>>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 08:09:02PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:

>>>> ehci_orion_drv_probe() did not account for possible errors of

>>>> clk_prepare_enable() that in particular could cause invocation of

>>>> clk_disable_unprepare() on clocks that were not prepared/enabled yet,

>>>> e.g. in remove or on handling errors of usb_add_hcd() in probe. Though,

>>>> there were several patches fixing different issues with clocks in this

>>>> driver, they did not solve this problem.

>>>>

>>>> Add handling of errors of clk_prepare_enable() in ehci_orion_drv_probe()

>>>> to avoid calls of clk_disable_unprepare() without previous successful

>>>> invocation of clk_prepare_enable().

>>>>

>>>> Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).

>>>>

>>>> Fixes: 8c869edaee07 ("ARM: Orion: EHCI: Add support for enabling clocks")

>>>> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Novikov <novikov@ispras.ru>

>>>> Co-developed-by: Kirill Shilimanov <kirill.shilimanov@huawei.com>

>>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Shilimanov <kirill.shilimanov@huawei.com>

>>>> ---

>>> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>

>>>

>>> Do you intend to submit patches for the other EHCI drivers that don't

>>> check for errors in clk_prepare_enable()?  It looks like

>>> ehci-atmel.c, ehci-mv.c, and ehci-spear.c all need some attention.

>>>

>>> The same is true for a bunch of the OHCI drivers: ohci-at91.c,

>>> ohci-exynos.c, ohci-s3c2410.c, and ohci-spear.c.

>>>

>>> Didn't the Linux Driver Verification project identify this problem in

>>> all of these drivers?

>> Our verification framework report numerous issues like the one for which I

>> sent the given patch. There are many warnings for different USB drivers and

>> other types of device drivers as well. We sent several patches that were

>> acknowledged by the developers already, though, after the Andrew's reply [1]

>> I have doubts that we need to treat these warnings as potential bugs and fix

>> them. The verification framework performs static analysis in a way that I

>> described before [2]. Regarding the clock API it uses such models of

>> clk_prepare() and clk_enable() that can fail independently on underlying

>> hardware since is not easy to either model all such hardware or try to

>> relate and consider corresponding drivers in addition to drivers using

>> clocks at verification. Thus, potentially the verification framework can

>> produce warnings for all drivers that invoke clk_prepare(), clk_enable() or

>> clk_prepare_enable(), but do not check for their return values.

>>

>> I look forward whether you will confirm that it makes sense to handle errors

>> from mentioned functions anyway or it would be better not to sent such bug

>> reports unless we will be strictly sure that they can happen. In the former

>> case it would be better if somebody will teach built-in Linux kernel static

>> analyzers to detect these issues on a regular basis.

> I don't know whether these errors can occur or not.  To find out, you need to

> ask someone who knows more about the clock framework.

>

> On the other hand, the fact that the functions do return an error code means

> that they expect callers to check its value.  In fact, whoever changed the API

> should have gone through all the callers to make sure they did so.

>

> (Let's put it this way:  If those functions can return an error, we should

> check the return code.  If they can't return an error then they shouldn't be

> defined to return an int, so the API should be changed.)

>

> So on the whole, I think making these changes would be a good thing.  At the

> very least, it will help make all the different EHCI and OHCI drivers

> consistent with each other.

I agree with your reasoning. Even though today these bugs can not happen 
since appropriate hardware and its drivers do not fail in a "necessary" 
way ever, this can suddenly change in the future. Maybe it will not be 
so easy to track the root causes especially taking into account that 
failures happen very seldom.

I am unready to make any considerable changes in the API. Also, as I 
mentioned before, it would be better if a bunch of appropriate fixes 
will be prepared by somebody who involved in development of the Linux 
kernel much more than me and who can automatize the process of finding 
such issues using static analysis tools. Most likely those tools are 
able to find all such places very quickly even for drivers on very 
specific architectures. I added Dan to the discussion since he is a 
developer of one of such tools.

Best regards,
Evgeny Novikov
> Alan Stern

>

>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/25/794

>> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/17/239

>>

>> Best regards,

>> Evgeny Novikov
Dan Carpenter Aug. 27, 2021, 11:51 a.m. | #5
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 07:26:22PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:
> I added Dan to the discussion since he is a developer of one of such

> tools.


Thanks for that...  :P

I never warn about "forgot to check the return" bugs except in the case
of error pointers or allocation failures.  There are too many false
positives.  If people want to do that they should add a __must_check
attribute to the function.

You linked to another thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/17/239

That patch isn't correct.  Miquel was on the right track but not 100%.
The nand_scan() calls mxic_nfc_clk_enable() so we should disable it
until it has been successfully enabled.  The current code can trigger a
WARN() in __clk_disable().  In other words it should have been:

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/mxic_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/mxic_nand.c
index da1070993994..87aef98f5b9d 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/mxic_nand.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/mxic_nand.c
@@ -535,11 +535,11 @@ static int mxic_nfc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	err = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, mxic_nfc_isr,
 			       0, "mxic-nfc", nfc);
 	if (err)
-		goto fail;
+		return err;
 
 	err = nand_scan(nand_chip, 1);
 	if (err)
-		goto fail;
+		return err;
 
 	err = mtd_device_register(mtd, NULL, 0);
 	if (err)

nand_scan() error handling is still leaky, but it's hard to fix without
re-working the API.

Anyway, thanks for the fixes.  I've been inspired by the Linux Driver
Verification project work.

regards,
dan carpenter
Evgeny Novikov Aug. 28, 2021, 10:37 a.m. | #6
Hi Dan,

On 27.08.2021 14:51, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 07:26:22PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:

>> I added Dan to the discussion since he is a developer of one of such

>> tools.

> Thanks for that...  :P

>

> I never warn about "forgot to check the return" bugs except in the case

> of error pointers or allocation failures.  There are too many false

> positives.  If people want to do that they should add a __must_check

> attribute to the function.

Maybe you will be able to convince the developers of the clock framework 
to add this attribute to some of their functions. For instance, this is 
already the case, say, for clk_bulk_prepare() and clk_bulk_enable() that 
seem to represent a number of clk_prepare() and clk_enable(). For those 
functions the __must_check attribute was added in commit 6e0d4ff4580c 
without providing any specific reasons why it is necessary for them and 
is not necessary for usual clk_prepare() and clk_enable().
> You linked to another thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/17/239

>

> That patch isn't correct.  Miquel was on the right track but not 100%.

> The nand_scan() calls mxic_nfc_clk_enable() so we should disable it

> until it has been successfully enabled.  The current code can trigger a

> WARN() in __clk_disable().  In other words it should have been:

>

> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/mxic_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/mxic_nand.c

> index da1070993994..87aef98f5b9d 100644

> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/mxic_nand.c

> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/mxic_nand.c

> @@ -535,11 +535,11 @@ static int mxic_nfc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)

>   	err = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, mxic_nfc_isr,

>   			       0, "mxic-nfc", nfc);

>   	if (err)

> -		goto fail;

> +		return err;

>   

>   	err = nand_scan(nand_chip, 1);

>   	if (err)

> -		goto fail;

> +		return err;

>   

>   	err = mtd_device_register(mtd, NULL, 0);

>   	if (err)

Thank you for this explanation. Now I understand better the Miquel's 
comment. Nevertheless, I still have doubts that your fix is completely 
correct sinceĀ  mxic_nfc_set_freq() invokes mxic_nfc_clk_disable() first 
that still should raise a warning. It seems that the driver developers 
are looking on this issue, so, let's wait a bug fix from them. At least 
they will be able to test that everything is okay after all.
> nand_scan() error handling is still leaky, but it's hard to fix without

> re-working the API.

>

> Anyway, thanks for the fixes.  I've been inspired by the Linux Driver

> Verification project work.

It would be great to collaborate with each other. For instance, for the 
aforementioned clock API your tool can perform better checking and find 
more potential bugs in some (maybe even all) cases due to a number of 
reasons. Unless it will be possible to detect all target issues 
automatically with static analysis tools, we can try to reveal some of 
the remaining ones with our heavyweight approach.

Best regards,
Evgeny Novikov
> regards,

> dan carpenter
Evgeny Novikov Aug. 28, 2021, 10:47 a.m. | #7
Hi Alan,

On 26.08.2021 18:24, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 04:30:22PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:

>> Hi Alan,

>>

>> On 25.08.2021 20:29, Alan Stern wrote:

>>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 08:09:02PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:

>>>> ehci_orion_drv_probe() did not account for possible errors of

>>>> clk_prepare_enable() that in particular could cause invocation of

>>>> clk_disable_unprepare() on clocks that were not prepared/enabled yet,

>>>> e.g. in remove or on handling errors of usb_add_hcd() in probe. Though,

>>>> there were several patches fixing different issues with clocks in this

>>>> driver, they did not solve this problem.

>>>>

>>>> Add handling of errors of clk_prepare_enable() in ehci_orion_drv_probe()

>>>> to avoid calls of clk_disable_unprepare() without previous successful

>>>> invocation of clk_prepare_enable().

>>>>

>>>> Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).

>>>>

>>>> Fixes: 8c869edaee07 ("ARM: Orion: EHCI: Add support for enabling clocks")

>>>> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Novikov <novikov@ispras.ru>

>>>> Co-developed-by: Kirill Shilimanov <kirill.shilimanov@huawei.com>

>>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Shilimanov <kirill.shilimanov@huawei.com>

>>>> ---

>>> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>

>>>

>>> Do you intend to submit patches for the other EHCI drivers that don't

>>> check for errors in clk_prepare_enable()?  It looks like

>>> ehci-atmel.c, ehci-mv.c, and ehci-spear.c all need some attention.

>>>

>>> The same is true for a bunch of the OHCI drivers: ohci-at91.c,

>>> ohci-exynos.c, ohci-s3c2410.c, and ohci-spear.c.

>>>

>>> Didn't the Linux Driver Verification project identify this problem in

>>> all of these drivers?

>> Our verification framework report numerous issues like the one for which I

>> sent the given patch. There are many warnings for different USB drivers and

>> other types of device drivers as well. We sent several patches that were

>> acknowledged by the developers already, though, after the Andrew's reply [1]

>> I have doubts that we need to treat these warnings as potential bugs and fix

>> them. The verification framework performs static analysis in a way that I

>> described before [2]. Regarding the clock API it uses such models of

>> clk_prepare() and clk_enable() that can fail independently on underlying

>> hardware since is not easy to either model all such hardware or try to

>> relate and consider corresponding drivers in addition to drivers using

>> clocks at verification. Thus, potentially the verification framework can

>> produce warnings for all drivers that invoke clk_prepare(), clk_enable() or

>> clk_prepare_enable(), but do not check for their return values.

>>

>> I look forward whether you will confirm that it makes sense to handle errors

>> from mentioned functions anyway or it would be better not to sent such bug

>> reports unless we will be strictly sure that they can happen. In the former

>> case it would be better if somebody will teach built-in Linux kernel static

>> analyzers to detect these issues on a regular basis.

> I don't know whether these errors can occur or not.  To find out, you need to

> ask someone who knows more about the clock framework.

>

> On the other hand, the fact that the functions do return an error code means

> that they expect callers to check its value.  In fact, whoever changed the API

> should have gone through all the callers to make sure they did so.

>

> (Let's put it this way:  If those functions can return an error, we should

> check the return code.  If they can't return an error then they shouldn't be

> defined to return an int, so the API should be changed.)

>

> So on the whole, I think making these changes would be a good thing.  At the

> very least, it will help make all the different EHCI and OHCI drivers

> consistent with each other.

Though I may be wrong, but after the discussion with Dan, it does not 
seem that we can expect any considerable changes in the clock API and 
support from the static analysis tools soon. So, if you still would like 
to see corresponding fixes in EHCI and OHCI drivers, I can prepare them.

Best regards,
Evgeny Novikov
> Alan Stern

>

>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/25/794

>> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/17/239

>>

>> Best regards,

>> Evgeny Novikov
Alan Stern Aug. 28, 2021, 3:11 p.m. | #8
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 01:47:12PM +0300, Evgeny Novikov wrote:
> Hi Alan,

> 

> On 26.08.2021 18:24, Alan Stern wrote:


> > I don't know whether these errors can occur or not.  To find out, you need to

> > ask someone who knows more about the clock framework.

> > 

> > On the other hand, the fact that the functions do return an error code means

> > that they expect callers to check its value.  In fact, whoever changed the API

> > should have gone through all the callers to make sure they did so.

> > 

> > (Let's put it this way:  If those functions can return an error, we should

> > check the return code.  If they can't return an error then they shouldn't be

> > defined to return an int, so the API should be changed.)

> > 

> > So on the whole, I think making these changes would be a good thing.  At the

> > very least, it will help make all the different EHCI and OHCI drivers

> > consistent with each other.

> Though I may be wrong, but after the discussion with Dan, it does not seem

> that we can expect any considerable changes in the clock API and support

> from the static analysis tools soon. So, if you still would like to see

> corresponding fixes in EHCI and OHCI drivers, I can prepare them.


Yes, please do so.

Alan Stern

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c
index a319b1df3011..3626758b3e2a 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c
@@ -264,8 +264,11 @@  static int ehci_orion_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	 * the clock does not exists.
 	 */
 	priv->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
-	if (!IS_ERR(priv->clk))
-		clk_prepare_enable(priv->clk);
+	if (!IS_ERR(priv->clk)) {
+		err = clk_prepare_enable(priv->clk);
+		if (err)
+			goto err_put_hcd;
+	}
 
 	priv->phy = devm_phy_optional_get(&pdev->dev, "usb");
 	if (IS_ERR(priv->phy)) {
@@ -311,6 +314,7 @@  static int ehci_orion_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 err_dis_clk:
 	if (!IS_ERR(priv->clk))
 		clk_disable_unprepare(priv->clk);
+err_put_hcd:
 	usb_put_hcd(hcd);
 err:
 	dev_err(&pdev->dev, "init %s fail, %d\n",