[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <tencent_A3850F2901FD5B80E831ABE7C27144509C0A@qq.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:06:06 +0800
From: xkernel.wang@...mail.com
To: andy@...nel.org
Cc: linus.walleij@...aro.org, brgl@...ev.pl,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Xiaoke Wang <xkernel.wang@...mail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] gpio: merrifield: check the return value of devm_kstrdup()
From: Xiaoke Wang <xkernel.wang@...mail.com>
devm_kstrdup() returns pointer to allocated string on success, NULL on
failure. So it is better to check the return value of it.
Before, if devm_kstrdup() fails, pinctrl_dev_name will be NULL, then the
retval below will be a negative error-code(inside gpiochip_add_pin_range(),
pinctrl_find_and_add_gpio_range()->get_pinctrl_dev_from_devname() will
finally check pinctrl_dev_name and return error), so the failure of
devm_kstrdup() can be only implicitly caught after a long call chain.
While this patch is to explicitly catch the failure in time.
> retval = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&priv->chip, pinctrl_dev_name,
> range->gpio_base,
> range->pin_base,
> range->npins);
> if (retval) {
> dev_err(priv->dev, "failed to add GPIO pin range\n");
> return retval;
> }
Signed-off-by: Xiaoke Wang <xkernel.wang@...mail.com>
---
Changelogs:
v1 -> v2: update the commit message.
drivers/gpio/gpio-merrifield.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-merrifield.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-merrifield.c
index 42c4d9d..f3d1bae 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-merrifield.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-merrifield.c
@@ -409,6 +409,9 @@ static int mrfld_gpio_add_pin_ranges(struct gpio_chip *chip)
int retval;
pinctrl_dev_name = mrfld_gpio_get_pinctrl_dev_name(priv);
+ if (!pinctrl_dev_name)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mrfld_gpio_ranges); i++) {
range = &mrfld_gpio_ranges[i];
retval = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&priv->chip, pinctrl_dev_name,
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists