pinctrl_count_index_with_args returns -ENOENT not
-EINVAL. The return check would pass, and we would
try to kzalloc with a negative error size throwing
a warning.

Instead of checking for -EINVAL specifically, lets
check for any error and avoid negative size allocations.

Signed-off-by: Axel Haslam <ahas...@baylibre.com>
---
 drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
index 539f31c..f36a9f1 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
@@ -1133,8 +1133,10 @@ static int pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry(struct pcs_device 
*pcs,
        struct pcs_function *function;
 
        rows = pinctrl_count_index_with_args(np, name);
-       if (rows == -EINVAL)
-               return rows;
+       if (rows <= 0) {
+               dev_err(pcs->dev, "Ivalid number of rows: %d\n", rows);
+               return -EINVAL;
+       }
 
        vals = devm_kzalloc(pcs->dev, sizeof(*vals) * rows, GFP_KERNEL);
        if (!vals)
@@ -1228,8 +1230,10 @@ static int pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry(struct 
pcs_device *pcs,
        struct pcs_function *function;
 
        rows = pinctrl_count_index_with_args(np, name);
-       if (rows == -EINVAL)
-               return rows;
+       if (rows <= 0) {
+               dev_err(pcs->dev, "Invalid number of rows: %d\n", rows);
+               return -EINVAL;
+       }
 
        npins_in_row = pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin;
 
-- 
2.10.1

Reply via email to