Re: [PATCH] PM / clk: ensure we don't allocate a -ve size of count clks

From	Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] PM / clk: ensure we don't allocate a -ve size of count clks
Date	2016-04-16 15:50 +0200
Message-ID	<royLL-4bu-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<roxZn-3zW-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <roxZn-3zW-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 16/04/16 13:52, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sat 2016-04-16 13:50:03, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>
>> It is entirely possible for of_count_phandle_wit_args to
>> return a -ve error return value so we need to check for this
>> otherwise we end up allocating a negative number of clk objects.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> 
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c
>> index 0e64a1b..3657ac1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c
>> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ int of_pm_clk_add_clks(struct device *dev)
>>  
>>  	count = of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "clocks",
>>  					   "#clock-cells");
>> -	if (count == 0)
>> +	if (count <= 0)
>>  		return -ENODEV;
> 
> Would it make sense to propagate the error value?

I don't think it will contribute much more than the current return.

> 
> 									Pavel
>

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH] PM / clk: ensure we don't allocate a -ve size of count  clks Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2016-04-16 15:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] PM / clk: ensure we don't allocate a -ve size of count  clks Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> - 2016-04-16 15:50 +0200

csiph-web