linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] phy: mediatek: Fix missing check in mtk_mipi_tx

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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:16:05 +0000
From:   Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@...il.com>
To:     Chun-Kuang Hu <chunkuang.hu@...nel.org>
Cc:     Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@...iatek.com>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: mediatek: Fix missing check in mtk_mipi_tx_probe

Hi, Chun-Kuang:

On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 12:31:33AM +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-mipi-dsi.c b/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-mipi-dsi.c
> > index 28ad9403c441..67b005d5b9e3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-mipi-dsi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-mipi-dsi.c
> > @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ static int mtk_mipi_tx_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> >
> >         mipi_tx->driver_data = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
> > +       if (!mipi_tx->driver_data)
> 
> I'm confused. mtk_mipi_tx_probe() is called because this device node's
> compatible match one in mtk_mipi_tx_match[]. So I think the return
> value of of_device_get_match_data(dev) would not be NULL. If this is
> true, this checking is redundant.
>
I think your are right, this checking is redundant. Thanks for your
reply.

Regards,
Miaoqian.