[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081016164330.GB27938@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:43:30 +0400
From: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] gpiolib: fix oops in gpio_get_value_cansleep()
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 08:45:22AM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> From: David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
[...]
> So the problem is that gpio_get_value_cansleep() isn't making
> the same sanity check that gpio_get_value() does: making sure
> this GPIO isn't one of the atypical "no input logic" cases.
>
> Reported-by: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -1056,7 +1056,7 @@ int gpio_get_value_cansleep(unsigned gpi
>
> might_sleep_if(extra_checks);
> chip = gpio_to_chip(gpio);
> - return chip->get(chip, gpio - chip->base);
> + return chip->get ? chip->get(chip, gpio - chip->base) : 0;
Why don't we check the .set in the gpio_set_value? Because
we must always call gpio_direction_output()? It is not exactly the
same we work with the input direction.. is this documented anywhere?
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists