Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:58:53 +0100 | From | Wolfram Sang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/6] pwm: pwm-lpc18xx-sct: test clock rate to avoid division by 0 |
| |
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:44:02PM +0100, Joachim Eastwood wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On 2 March 2016 at 23:33, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote: > > From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > > > The clk API may return 0 on clk_get_rate, so we should check the result before > > using it as a divisor. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > --- > > > > Should go individually via subsystem tree. > > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c > > index 9163085101bc94..6487962c355c03 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc18xx-sct.c > > @@ -360,6 +360,8 @@ static int lpc18xx_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > } > > > > lpc18xx_pwm->clk_rate = clk_get_rate(lpc18xx_pwm->pwm_clk); > > + if (!lpc18xx_pwm->clk_rate) > > + return -EINVAL; > > This needs to be: > if (!lpc18xx_pwm->clk_rate) { > ret = -EINVAL; > goto disable_pwmclk; > }
Yes, that slipped through. Thanks!
> I would also prefer an explicit check against 0 here. ie.:
Well, I like the reading "if not rate then error"
Will send V2 now...
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |