Re: [RFC PATCH] iio: ak8975: Make sure chipset is always initialized

[Daniel Baluta]

I will have closer look on why acpi_match_device could fail. This patch
was only based on code reading when trying to fix the compiler warning
mentioned in the commit message.

[Sorry for top posting]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Pandruvada, Srinivas
<srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +Mika
>
> On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 13:26 -0800, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
>> On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 00:25 +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote:
>> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > Daniel Baluta schrieb am 18.12.2014 um 18:16:
>> > >> When using ACPI, if acpi_match_device fails then chipset enum will be
>> > >> uninitialized and &ak_def_array[chipset] will point to some bad address.
>> > >>
>> I am missing something. You are enumerated over i2c device, which was
>> created from ACPI PNP resource. There is a valid handle or and the
>> device has an ACPI companion at the least. If this failing, I have to
>> check the code for acpi i2c.
>> Can you check why this check failed? We may have bug in i2c handling.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Srinivas
>>
>> > >> This fixes the following compilation warning:
>> > >>
>> > >> drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c: In function âak8975_probeâ:
>> > >> drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c:788:14: warning: âchipsetâ may be used
>> > >> uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>> > >>   data->def =ak_def_array[chipset];
>> > >>
>> > >> Reported-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> ---
>> > >> This is a RFC because while I'm pretty sure that chipset should be initialized
>> > >> with AK_MAX_TYPE in ak8975_match_acpi_device, I am not sure if we can live with
>> > >> a NULL return value of ak8975_match_acpi_device. Current implementation ignores
>> > >> return value of ak8975_match_acpi_device.
>> > > This seems to be the actual problem: these _match_acpi_device functions return
>> > > NULL on failure, and this should be checked for.
>> >
>> > Ok, so this would acceptable?
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c
>> > b/drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c
>> > index 0d10a4b..68d99e9 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/iio/magnetometer/ak8975.c
>> > @@ -776,8 +776,9 @@ static int ak8975_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> >                 name = id->name;
>> >         } else if (ACPI_HANDLE(&client->dev))
>> >                 name = ak8975_match_acpi_device(&client->dev, &chipset);
>> > -       else
>> > -               return -ENOSYS;
>> > +
>> > +       if (!name)
>> > +               return -ENODEV;
>> >
>> >
>> > I still have some doubts about return code in case of error.
>> >
>> > For ak8975 we use -ENOSYS, but for kxcjk-1013 we use -ENODEV.
>> >
>> > I will send a patch after we clear this out.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Daniel.
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/