| Message ID | 20170716175244.300670810@cogentembedded.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
Forgot to mention that this patch is against Linus' repo as Sebastian's repo lags behind at 4.10-rc1...
Hi, On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 08:55:13PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Forgot to mention that this patch is against Linus' repo as Sebastian's repo > lags behind at 4.10-rc1... You are supposed to use my for-next branch [0] and not master :) That one was 4.12-rc1 + power supply patches until a few hours ago and now is 4.13-rc1. So if you based on current master from Linus it should be ok. I will start reviewing patches for the v4.14 cycle shortly. [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sre/linux-power-supply.git/log/?h=for-next -- Sebastian
Hello! On 07/17/2017 01:50 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote: >> Forgot to mention that this patch is against Linus' repo as Sebastian's repo >> lags behind at 4.10-rc1... > > You are supposed to use my for-next branch [0] and not master :) That > one was 4.12-rc1 + power supply patches until a few hours ago and > now is 4.13-rc1. So if you based on current master from Linus it > should be ok. I will start reviewing patches for the v4.14 cycle > shortly. I first tried to use 'fixes' but that one was at 4.8-rc1, then switched to back to 'master'. Since this patch is a bug fix, I didn't consider for-next. > [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sre/linux-power-supply.git/log/?h=for-next > > -- Sebastian MBR, Sergei
Hi, On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 03:00:26PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello! > > On 07/17/2017 01:50 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > > > > Forgot to mention that this patch is against Linus' repo as Sebastian's repo > > > lags behind at 4.10-rc1... > > > > You are supposed to use my for-next branch [0] and not master :) That > > one was 4.12-rc1 + power supply patches until a few hours ago and > > now is 4.13-rc1. So if you based on current master from Linus it > > should be ok. I will start reviewing patches for the v4.14 cycle > > shortly. > > I first tried to use 'fixes' but that one was at 4.8-rc1, then > switched to back to 'master'. Since this patch is a bug fix, I > didn't consider for-next. Right, I did not check carefully enough. I often do not have to send any fixes, so that branch tends to get stale. -- Sebastian
Hi, On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 08:52:20PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > of_irq_get() may return any negative error number as well as 0 on failure, > while the driver only checks for -EPROBE_DEFER, blithely continuing with > the call to devm_request_irq() -- that function expects *unsigned int*, > so would probably fail anyway when a large IRQ number resulting from a > conversion of a negative error number is passed to it... This, however, > is incorrect behavior -- error number is not IRQ number. > > Check for 'irq <= 0' instead and return -ENXIO from probe if of_irq_get() > returned 0. > > Fixes: a09209acd6a8 ("power: supply: act8945a_charger: Add status change update support") > Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> Thanks, applied to power-supply's fixes branch. -- Sebastian > --- > drivers/power/supply/act8945a_charger.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Index: linux/drivers/power/supply/act8945a_charger.c > =================================================================== > --- linux.orig/drivers/power/supply/act8945a_charger.c > +++ linux/drivers/power/supply/act8945a_charger.c > @@ -596,9 +596,9 @@ static int act8945a_charger_probe(struct > return ret; > > irq = of_irq_get(pdev->dev.of_node, 0); > - if (irq == -EPROBE_DEFER) { > + if (irq <= 0) { > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to find IRQ number\n"); > - return -EPROBE_DEFER; > + return irq ?: -ENXIO; > } > > ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, act8945a_status_changed, >
Index: linux/drivers/power/supply/act8945a_charger.c =================================================================== --- linux.orig/drivers/power/supply/act8945a_charger.c +++ linux/drivers/power/supply/act8945a_charger.c @@ -596,9 +596,9 @@ static int act8945a_charger_probe(struct return ret; irq = of_irq_get(pdev->dev.of_node, 0); - if (irq == -EPROBE_DEFER) { + if (irq <= 0) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to find IRQ number\n"); - return -EPROBE_DEFER; + return irq ?: -ENXIO; } ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, act8945a_status_changed,
of_irq_get() may return any negative error number as well as 0 on failure, while the driver only checks for -EPROBE_DEFER, blithely continuing with the call to devm_request_irq() -- that function expects *unsigned int*, so would probably fail anyway when a large IRQ number resulting from a conversion of a negative error number is passed to it... This, however, is incorrect behavior -- error number is not IRQ number. Check for 'irq <= 0' instead and return -ENXIO from probe if of_irq_get() returned 0. Fixes: a09209acd6a8 ("power: supply: act8945a_charger: Add status change update support") Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> --- drivers/power/supply/act8945a_charger.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)