From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752089AbcBEB6u (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2016 20:58:50 -0500 Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]:35107 "EHLO mail-ob0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752044AbcBEB6p (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2016 20:58:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160204113609.GA11239@mwanda> References: <20160204113609.GA11239@mwanda> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 10:58:43 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: mzkedI5V7uoD7tOqe4muIfWlALA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] extcon: use correct size From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Dan Carpenter Cc: MyungJoo Ham , Jaewon Kim , Chanwoo Choi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2016-02-04 20:36 GMT+09:00 Dan Carpenter : > The info->status[] array has 3 elements. We are using size > MAX77843_MUIC_IRQ_NUM (16) instead of MAX77843_MUIC_STATUS_NUM (3) as > intended. > > Fixes: 135d9f7d135a ('extcon: max77843: Clear IRQ bits state before request IRQ') > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > --- > This is from static analysis and *NOT TESTED*. Please review carefully. > > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77843.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77843.c > index 7bbc300..b188bd6 100644 > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77843.c > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77843.c > @@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ static int max77843_muic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > /* Clear IRQ bits before request IRQs */ > ret = regmap_bulk_read(max77843->regmap_muic, > MAX77843_MUIC_REG_INT1, info->status, > - MAX77843_MUIC_IRQ_NUM); > + MAX77843_MUIC_STATUS_NUM); > if (ret) { > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to Clear IRQ bits\n"); > goto err_muic_irq; Looks correct. Issue came from our internal tree where MAX77843_MUIC_IRQ_NUM is redefined to a value of 3. However the subject should be fixed to match the subsystem and more accurately describe the error. Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski Best regards, Krzysztof