lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] pinctrl: nsp-gpio: fix type of iterator
From
Date


On 12/24/2015 4:05 AM, Ray Jui wrote:
> + Reddy
>
> On 12/23/2015 2:37 AM, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> Iterator i declared as unsigned is always non-negative so the
>> loop will never end.
>>
>> The problem has been detected using proposed semantic patch
>> scripts/coccinelle/tests/unsigned_lesser_than_zero.cocci [1].
>>
>> [1]: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2038576
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-gpio.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-gpio.c b/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-gpio.c
>> index 34648f6..ad5b04c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-gpio.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-gpio.c
>> @@ -439,7 +439,8 @@ static int nsp_gpio_set_strength(struct nsp_gpio *chip, unsigned gpio,
>> static int nsp_gpio_get_strength(struct nsp_gpio *chip, unsigned gpio,
>> u16 *strength)
>> {
>> - unsigned int i, offset, shift;
>> + unsigned int offset, shift;
>> + int i;
>> u32 val;
>> unsigned long flags;
>>
>>
> The fix is a valid fix. And at the same time it exposes other potential
> issues in the driver. I just found the loop used in _set_strength and
> _get_strength is inconsistent:
>
> In _set_strength:
>
> 427 for (i = GPIO_DRV_STRENGTH_BITS; i > 0; i--) {
>
> For i to start at GPIO_DRV_STRENGTH_BITS, it seems to be wrong.
>
> 428 val = readl(chip->io_ctrl + offset);
> 429 val &= ~BIT(shift);
> 430 val |= ((strength >> (i-1)) & 0x1) << shift;
> 431 writel(val, chip->io_ctrl + offset);
> 432 offset += 4;
> 433 }
>
> In _get_strength:
>
> 451 for (i = (GPIO_DRV_STRENGTH_BITS - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
> 452 val = readl(chip->io_ctrl + offset) & BIT(shift);
> 453 val >>= shift;
> 454 *strength += (val << i);
> 455 offset += 4;
> 456 }
>
> Reddy, could you please review and comment?

Hi Ray,

The logic is correct. The drive strength has three bits distributed in three registers. In one case the "-1" is in for loop initialization and the other case it is in the for loop body. The fix looks good.

Thanks
Dhananjay

> Thanks,
>
> Ray
>
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-24 07:21    [W:0.481 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site