[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM3PR04MB3063FA8C1B267634A8B1A5180C10@AM3PR04MB306.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:14:59 +0000
From: "A.s. Dong" <aisheng.dong@....com>
To: Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
inus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] pinctrl: imx: fix unsigned check if nfuncs with less than
or equal zero
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin King [mailto:colin.king@...onical.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 8:04 PM
> To: A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>; Fabio Estevam
> <festevam@...il.com>; Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>; Stefan
> Agner <stefan@...er.ch>; inus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>; linux-
> gpio@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH] pinctrl: imx: fix unsigned check if nfuncs with less than or
> equal zero
>
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>
> The unsigned integer nfuncs is being error checked with a value less or equal
> to zero; this is always false if of_get_child_count returns a -ve for an error
> condition since nfuncs is not signed. Fix this by making variables nfuncs and i
> signed integers.
>
> Detected with Coccinelle:
> drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx.c:620:6-12: WARNING: Unsigned
> expression compared with zero: nfuncs <= 0
>
> Fixes: ae75ff814538 ("pinctrl: pinctrl-imx: add imx pinctrl core driver")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx.c
> b/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx.c
> index 24aaddd760a0..1e8ca83352d0 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx.c
> @@ -605,8 +605,8 @@ static int imx_pinctrl_probe_dt(struct
> platform_device *pdev,
> struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> struct device_node *child;
> struct pinctrl_dev *pctl = ipctl->pctl;
> - u32 nfuncs = 0;
> - u32 i = 0;
> + int nfuncs = 0;
> + int i = 0;
> bool flat_funcs;
>
I saw 'i', later used, is converted to u32 unconditionally. (GCC did not complain)
e.g.
radix_tree_insert
imx_pinctrl_parse_functions
And of_get_child_count seems can't return a minor value.
So does something like below look better?
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx.c b/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx.c
index c976ffe..4259209 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx.c
@@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ static int imx_pinctrl_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
nfuncs = 1;
} else {
nfuncs = of_get_child_count(np);
- if (nfuncs <= 0) {
+ if (nfuncs == 0) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no functions defined\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
Regards
Dong Aisheng
> if (!np)
> --
> 2.15.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists