From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: martinwguy@gmail.com (Martin Guy)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 04:30:19 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] ep93xx: add /proc/cpuinfo extension
In-Reply-To: <0D753D10438DA54287A00B02708426976368DDCD38@AUSP01VMBX24.collaborationhost.net>
References: <AcrJ7vBVySpZbSYBQ1eQDb/9VrGf4Q==>
	<0D753D10438DA54287A00B02708426976368DDCD38@AUSP01VMBX24.collaborationhost.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=7hmWOFZFg_-zT3EO3uwzOXKkR+pCroc3UUTOV@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Just spotted an off-by-one error in this patch, if of very minor and
unlikely effect.

On 22 March 2010 19:39, H Hartley Sweeten <hartleys@visionengravers.com> wrote:
> Add a callback to mach-ep93xx for the /proc/cpuinfo extension.
>
> This cpuinfo extension dumps the processor unique ID and Maverick
> Key as well as the processor silicon revision and a number of
> boot configuration options.
> ...
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/core.c b/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/core.c
> index 90fb591..fe1eb7a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/core.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/core.c
>...
> +static const char *ep93xx_rev[] = {
> + ? ? ? "A", "B", "C", "D0", "D1", "E0", "E1", "E2", "??"
> +};
>...
> + ? ? ? val = ep93xx_chip_revision();
> + ? ? ? if (val > ARRAY_SIZE(ep93xx_rev))
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? val = ARRAY_SIZE(ep93xx_rev) - 1;
> + ? ? ? seq_printf(m, "Silicon Rev\t: %s\n", ep93xx_rev[val]);

Shouldn't that be

+       if (val >= ARRAY_SIZE(ep93xx_rev))

?

    M
?