drm/mediatek: Add missing IS_ERR check for ovl_adaptor platform devicegrafted

platform_device_register_data() can fail and return an ERR_PTR, but the
return value is used without checking, leading to an invalid pointer
being stored in ddp_comp[].dev and passed to component_match_add() and
mtk_ddp_comp_init(), which could result in a kernel crash.

Add an IS_ERR() check to jump to the error handling path on failure.

Fixes: 0d9eee9118b7 ("drm/mediatek: Add drm ovl_adaptor sub driver for MT8195")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Haojie Li <lihaojie@kylinos.cn>
Reviewed-by: CK Hu <ck.hu@mediatek.com>
Link: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20260825100845.438893-1-lihaojie@kylinos.cn/
Signed-off-by: Chun-Kuang Hu <chunkuang.hu@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 59 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/arch/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/arch/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..634aa222b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/arch/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+arch/riscv maintenance guidelines for developers
+================================================
+
+Overview
+--------
+The RISC-V instruction set architecture is developed in the open:
+in-progress drafts are available for all to review and to experiment
+with implementations.  New module or extension drafts can change
+during the development process - sometimes in ways that are
+incompatible with previous drafts.  This flexibility can present a
+challenge for RISC-V Linux maintenance.  Linux maintainers disapprove
+of churn, and the Linux development process prefers well-reviewed and
+tested code over experimental code.  We wish to extend these same
+principles to the RISC-V-related code that will be accepted for
+inclusion in the kernel.
+
+Patchwork
+---------
+
+RISC-V has a patchwork instance, where the status of patches can be checked:
+
+  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/list/
+
+If your patch does not appear in the default view, the RISC-V maintainers have
+likely either requested changes, or expect it to be applied to another tree.
+
+Automation runs against this patchwork instance, building/testing patches as
+they arrive. The automation applies patches against the current HEAD of the
+RISC-V `for-next` and `fixes` branches, depending on whether the patch has been
+detected as a fix. Failing those, it will use the RISC-V `master` branch.
+The exact commit to which a series has been applied will be noted on patchwork.
+Patches for which any of the checks fail are unlikely to be applied and in most
+cases will need to be resubmitted.
+
+Submit Checklist Addendum
+-------------------------
+We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
+specifications for those modules or extensions are listed as being
+unlikely to be incompatibly changed in the future.  For
+specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or
+"Ratified", for the UEFI forum specifications this means a published
+ECR.  (Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees
+that contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.)
+
+Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementers to create
+their own custom extensions.  These custom extensions aren't required
+to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V
+Foundation.  To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential
+performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific
+RISC-V extensions, we'll only consider patches for extensions that either:
+
+- Have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation, or
+- Have been implemented in hardware that is widely available, per standard
+  Linux practice.
+
+(Implementers, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing
+code for any custom extensions that they wish.)