Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: vf610: Add missing check for device_property_read_u32_array
From: Jonathan Cameron
Date: Thu Jan 29 2026 - 12:43:43 EST
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:29:47 +0000
Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2026-01-28 at 12:27 +0800, Chen Ni wrote:
> > Add check for the return value of device_property_read_u32_array() and
> > return the error if it fails in order to catch the error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Ni <nichen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/iio/adc/vf610_adc.c | 5 ++++-
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/vf610_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/vf610_adc.c
> > index d7182ed0d2a7..d53723ccc5b2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/vf610_adc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/vf610_adc.c
> > @@ -871,7 +871,10 @@ static int vf610_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> > info->vref_uv = regulator_get_voltage(info->vref);
> >
> > - device_property_read_u32_array(dev, "fsl,adck-max-frequency", info->max_adck_rate, 3);
> > + ret = device_property_read_u32_array(dev, "fsl,adck-max-frequency",
> > + info->max_adck_rate, 3);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
>
> As Andy pointed out, this is changing behavior so it needs to be properly justified. Also since we
> are here, maybe use ARRAY_SIZE(info->max_adck_rate).
>
Given the driver has a fallback for info->max_adck_rate[x] == 0
I think this is intentional. It would be clearer if this had done.
info->max_adck_rate[0] = 8;
info->max_adck_rate[1] = 8;
info->max_adck_rate[2] = 8;
device_property_read_u32_array(dev, "fsl,adck-max-frequency", info->max_adck_rate, 3);
though rather than where it has the fallback in vf610_adc_calculate_rates()
> - Nuno Sá
>
> >
> > info->adc_feature.default_sample_time = DEFAULT_SAMPLE_TIME;
> > device_property_read_u32(dev, "min-sample-time", &info->adc_feature.default_sample_time);