Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] power: ip5xxx_power: Allow for more parameters to be configured

[Csókás Bence]

Hi,

On 2024. 12. 06. 20:51, Kees Bakker wrote:
> Op 19-11-2024 om 19:07 schreef Csókás, Bence:
> > Other parts such as IP5306 may support other battery voltages and
> > have different constants for input voltage regulation. Allow these
> > to be passed from `struct ip5xxx_regfield_config`.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Csókás, Bence <csokas.bence@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/power/supply/ip5xxx_power.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/ip5xxx_power.c 
> > b/drivers/power/supply/ip5xxx_power.c
> > index 41d91504eb32..a939dbfe8d23 100644
> > --- a/drivers/power/supply/ip5xxx_power.c
> > +++ b/drivers/power/supply/ip5xxx_power.c
> > [...]
> >   /*
> > @@ -328,6 +348,9 @@ static int ip5xxx_battery_get_voltage_max(struct 
> > ip5xxx *ip5xxx, int *val)
> >       if (ret)
> >           return ret;
> > +    if (*val > ip5xxx->vbat_max)
> > +        return -EINVAL;
> This is introducing the read of an uninitialized variable.
> You have to check all the callers of ip5xxx_battery_get_voltage_max()
> and what variable *val is pointing to. For example in
> ip5xxx_battery_get_property() the variable vmax is not initialized,
> while its address is passed to ip5xxx_battery_get_voltage_max()
>
> But maybe the intention was to check rval instead of *val?
> [...]

That was supposed to go in set_voltage_max()... I'll send a fix shortly.

Bence