On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:11:58AM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > On 19/02/15 10:31, Mark Brown wrote:
> >Your changelog doesn't correspond to what the code is actually doing > >here... what you're actually doing here is replacing an open coding of > >regmap_writeable() with calls to the function. > Only reason for me to send this patch was that fact that _regmap_raw_write() > also suffers from same issue as _regmap_raw_read(), which is "access beyond > max_register". > Should I drop this patch? > Or > Adding similar check of max_register before the writing makes sense? No, please go and reread your patch - neither your description above nor the changelog match up with what it's actually doing. It looks like a perfectly sensible patch, it just doesn't do what you're saying it does.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
