Re: [PATCH] lm3697: Rename struct into more appropiate name

2020-10-08 Thread ultracoolguy
Umm: : host vger.kernel.org[23.128.96.18] said: 553 5.7.1 Hello [178.21.23.139], for your MAIL FROM address policy analysis reported: Your address is not liked source for email (in reply to MAIL FROM command)Is disroot.org banned? Oct 8, 2020, 12:10 by ultracool...@tutanota.com:

Re: [PATCH] lm3697: Rename struct into more appropiate name

2020-10-08 Thread ultracoolguy
Gotcha. >From now on I'm gonna respond with this new email: ultracool...@disroot.org . Oct 7, 2020, 14:56 by dmur...@ti.com: > Gabriel > > On 10/7/20 7:21 AM, ultracool...@tutanota.com wrote: > >> The reason I didn't use git send-mail earlier is because Tutanota doesn't >> supports SMTP and

Re: [PATCH] lm3697: Rename struct into more appropiate name

2020-10-07 Thread ultracoolguy
The reason I didn't use git send-mail earlier is because Tutanota doesn't supports SMTP and Protonmail requires a paid account for using SMTP/IMAP. However, I made an account creation request for Disroot(which does support SMTP for free), so when/if the account gets created I'll send future

Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access

2020-10-06 Thread ultracoolguy
While I do agree with you that having the child nodes be led strings make more sense, would it be possible to have, for example, three strings controlled by the same label? Oct 6, 2020, 07:33 by ka...@blackhole.sk: > By the way I just realized that the DT binding in this driver seems >

[PATCH] lm3697: Rename struct into more appropiate name

2020-10-05 Thread ultracoolguy
Subject says it all. This rename was briefly discussed in this other patch: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-leds/msg16865.html (I don't know another way to link to emails, so I'll just use this archive). Feel free to suggest another name for the commit; that was just the better name I

Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access

2020-10-05 Thread ultracoolguy
>No problem, sorry for breaking your patch. I moved it near other initializers. No problem :) >Question: is it likely that someone will want to use your device with -stable kernels? Should I mark this for -stable? To be honest, it's unlikely that someone other than me is interested in my

Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access

2020-10-05 Thread ultracoolguy
Otherwise everything works great :) (And sorry for sending two emails) Oct 5, 2020, 18:29 by ultracool...@tutanota.com: > This: > > led->num_banks = count; > > Has to be below devm_kzalloc. Else, it's NULL. > Oct 5, 2020, 17:32 by pa...@ucw.cz: > >> Hi! >> >>> Agh. I added the Signed-off-by

Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access

2020-10-05 Thread ultracoolguy
This: led->num_banks = count; Has to be below devm_kzalloc. Else, it's NULL. Oct 5, 2020, 17:32 by pa...@ucw.cz: > Hi! > >> Agh. I added the Signed-off-by in an earlier non-published version of the >> commit, but forgot to add it back. But that doesn't really excuses me. >> >> I attached the

Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access

2020-10-05 Thread ultracoolguy
another patch? >> >> >> > >> > You should do the fix in one patch and leave the structure name alone. >> > >> > The structure naming if fine and has no benefit and actually will make it >> > more difficult for others to backport future fixes. &

Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access

2020-10-05 Thread ultracoolguy
t > more difficult for others to backport future fixes. > > Unless Pavel finds benefit in accepting the structure rename. > > Dan > >From ee004d26bb2f91491141aa06f5518cc411711ff0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ultracoolguy Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:27:00 -0400 Subject: [PATCH

Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access

2020-10-05 Thread ultracoolguy
I understand. So I should leave it like it was and do the rename in another patch? Oct 5, 2020, 14:33 by dmur...@ti.com: > Marek > > On 10/5/20 8:57 AM, ultracool...@tutanota.com wrote: > >> I agree with you. >> >> Attached patch with changes. >> > > Nack to the patch. > > The subject says it

Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access

2020-10-05 Thread ultracoolguy
I agree with you. Attached patch with changes. Oct 5, 2020, 12:13 by ka...@blackhole.sk: > On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 15:02:51 +0200 (CEST) > ultracool...@tutanota.com wrote: > >> From 0dfd5ab647ccbc585c543d702b44d20f0e3fe436 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Ultracoolguy >

Re: [PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access

2020-10-03 Thread ultracoolguy
cc trivial tree. OTOH Ccing Marek who did a lot of cleanups in -next might be useful. Doing that now. Sorry for that. Gonna CC Marek from now on. Btw thanks for the quick response! Oct 3, 2020, 13:56 by pa...@ucw.cz: > Hi! > >> Signed-off-by: Ultracoolguy >> > > I'll ne

[PATCH] leds: lm3697: Fix out-of-bound access

2020-10-03 Thread ultracoolguy
Signed-off-by: Ultracoolguy Hi, all. This is a patch fixing an out-of-bounds error due to lm3697_init expecting the device tree to use both control banks.  This fixes it by adding a new variable that will hold the number of used banks. Panic caused by this bug: <1>[    3.059763]