Re: [PATCH 4/5] mfd: sprd-sc27xx-spi: Fix divide by zero when allocating register offset/mask

[Johan Hovold]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:35:06PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:01 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:32:14PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > Since ddata->irqs[] is already zeroed when allocated by devm_kcalloc() and
> > > > dividing 0 by anything is still 0, there is no need to re-assign
> > > > ddata->irqs[i].* values.  Instead, it should be safe to begin at 1.
> > > >
> > > > This fixes the following W=1 warning:
> > > >
> > > >  drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c:255 sprd_pmic_probe() debug: sval_binop_unsigned: divide by zero
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c b/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> > > > index c305e941e435c..694a7d429ccff 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> > > > @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ static int sprd_pmic_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> > > >             return -ENOMEM;
> > > >
> > > >     ddata->irq_chip.irqs = ddata->irqs;
> > > > -   for (i = 0; i < pdata->num_irqs; i++) {
> > > > +   for (i = 1; i < pdata->num_irqs; i++) {
> > > >             ddata->irqs[i].reg_offset = i / pdata->num_irqs;
> > > >             ddata->irqs[i].mask = BIT(i % pdata->num_irqs);
> > > >     }
> > >
> > > This doesn't look right either.
> > >
> > > First, the loop is never executed if num_irqs is zero.
> >
> > The point of the patch is that 0 entries are never processed.

So what's the problem? There's no division by zero here.

And what compiler are you using, Lee? Seems broken.

> > > Second, the current code looks bogus too as reg_offset is always set to
> > > zero and mask to BIT(i)...
> 
> Now the result is correct, since all PMIC irq mask bits are in one
> register now, which means the reg_offset is always 0 can work well.
> But I think the logics still can be improved if our PMIC irq numbers
> are larger than 32 in future.

The code is still bogus as pointed out above. Why do you bother to
divide by num_irqs at all?

And what have you guys been smoking? ;)

Johan