linux-kernel - regulator: regulator_get behaviour without CONFIG

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1779783481.621270223270264.JavaMail.root@mail.savoirfairelinux.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:47:50 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Jerome Oufella <jerome.oufella@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	lm-sensors <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: regulator: regulator_get behaviour without CONFIG_REGULATOR set

Hi,

Working on drivers/hwmon/sht15.c, I noticed it would return bogus temperatures in my case, where CONFIG_REGULATOR is not set.

This is due to the following section in drivers/hwmon/sht15.c:

/* If a regulator is available, query what the supply voltage actually is!*/
        data->reg = regulator_get(data->dev, "vcc");
        if (!IS_ERR(data->reg)) {
            ...

Looking at consumer.h, it appears that regulator_get() returns a pointer to its second argument when CONFIG_REGULATOR is not set.

What would be the proper way to determine if the returned value is a valid regulator ?
Would it be safe to check it against the 2nd argument ?

Regards
Jerome Oufella
--
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/