Hi Alex,
Thanks for your patch!
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 4:08 PM <alex_l...@163.com> wrote:
> From: Zhang Kun <zhang...@cdjrlc.com>
>
> The parameters of sh_pfc_enum_in_range() pinmux_range *r should be checked
> first for possible null ponter, especially when PINMUX_TYPE_FUNCTION as the
> pinmux_type was passed by sh_pfc_config_mux().
If pinmux_type in sh_pfc_config_mux() is PINMUX_TYPE_FUNCTION or
PINMUX_TYPE_GPIO, range is indeed NULL.
But as the call
in_range = sh_pfc_enum_in_range(enum_id, range);
is not done in case of these pinmux types, I don't see where the
problem is. What am I missing?
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Kun <zhang...@cdjrlc.com>
As you picked up a patch from Zhang, you should add your own SoB here.
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/core.c
> @@ -128,6 +128,9 @@ int sh_pfc_get_pin_index(struct sh_pfc *pfc, unsigned int
> pin)
>
> static int sh_pfc_enum_in_range(u16 enum_id, const struct pinmux_range *r)
> {
> + if (!r)
> + return 0;
> +
> if (enum_id < r->begin)
> return 0;
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
