[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <21c6b967-f4b5-db68-89b4-a9caa4e76fda@canonical.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 14:50:44 +0100
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: ep93xx: fix test for end of loop
On 06/09/18 14:33, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The problem is that if port == ARRAY_SIZE() and "gc == &epg->gc[port]"
> then that should be treated as invalid.
>
> Fixes: fd935fc421e7 ("gpio: ep93xx: Do not pingpong irq numbers")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ep93xx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ep93xx.c
> index 68a416fc3141..b0699f57ddf5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ep93xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ep93xx.c
> @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static int ep93xx_gpio_port(struct gpio_chip *gc)
> port++;
>
> /* This should not happen but is there as a last safeguard */
> - if (gc != &epg->gc[port]) {
> + if (port == ARRAY_SIZE(epg->gc)) {
> pr_crit("can't find the GPIO port\n");
> return 0;
> }
>
Good catch! I overlooked that one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists