Re: [PATCH -next] ACPI: LPSS: Replaced simple_strtol() with kstrtol()

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 4:46 AM Liu Shixin <liushixin2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2021/5/24 22:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 1:35 PM Liu Shixin <liushixin2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> The simple_strtol() function is deprecated in some situation since
> >> it does not check for the range overflow. Use kstrtol() instead.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c | 13 ++++++-------
> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> >> index ca742f16a507..1b46e00cad3a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> >> @@ -186,13 +186,12 @@ static void byt_i2c_setup(struct lpss_private_data *pdata)
> >>         long uid = 0;
> >>
> >>         /* Expected to always be true, but better safe then sorry */
> >> -       if (uid_str)
> >> -               uid = simple_strtol(uid_str, NULL, 10);
> >> -
> >> -       /* Detect I2C bus shared with PUNIT and ignore its d3 status */
> >> -       status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "_SEM", NULL, &shared_host);
> >> -       if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && shared_host && uid)
> >> -               pmc_atom_d3_mask &= ~(BIT_LPSS2_F1_I2C1 << (uid - 1));
> >> +       if (uid_str && !kstrtol(uid_str, 10, &uid)) {
> >> +               /* Detect I2C bus shared with PUNIT and ignore its d3 status */
> >> +               status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "_SEM", NULL, &shared_host);
> >> +               if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && shared_host && uid)
> >> +                       pmc_atom_d3_mask &= ~(BIT_LPSS2_F1_I2C1 << (uid - 1));
> >> +       }
> > This is not a simple replacement.
> >
> > Why are you making the other changes?
> The variables status and shared_host are valid only when the uid is not zero(default to zero).
> If uid_str is NULL or kstrtol() failed or uid is assigned to zero, we can skip these operations.

So why don't you write this in the changelog of the patch?