| Message ID | 1456958018-7849-5-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
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; } I would also prefer an explicit check against 0 here. ie.: 'lpc18xx_pwm->clk_rate == 0' A dev_err() message would also be nice to have. regards, Joachim Eastwood
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...
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; mutex_init(&lpc18xx_pwm->res_lock); mutex_init(&lpc18xx_pwm->period_lock);