On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:15:22PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:06:01PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > Both index and level can only be either 0 or 1 and the filter value is
> > limited to values between (and including) 0 and 15. Validate that the
> > device tree node contains values that are within these ranges.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32.c | 8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32.c
> > index db1d675b45fb..7ff48c14fae8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32.c
> > @@ -530,6 +530,7 @@ static int stm32_pwm_probe_breakinputs(struct stm32_pwm *priv,
> >  				       struct device_node *np)
> >  {
> >  	int nb, ret, array_size;
> > +	unsigned int i;
> >  
> >  	nb = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "st,breakinput",
> >  					     sizeof(struct stm32_breakinput));
> > @@ -551,6 +552,13 @@ static int stm32_pwm_probe_breakinputs(struct stm32_pwm *priv,
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > +	for (i = 0; i < priv->num_breakinputs; i++) {
> > +		if (priv->breakinputs[i].index > 1 ||
> > +		    priv->breakinputs[i].level > 1 ||
> > +		    priv->breakinputs[i].filter > 15)
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> maybe put this patch before patch 1 that relies on index not being
> bigger than 1?

Yeah, that's a good idea. Does that resolve the concerns you had on
patch 1?

Thierry