Re: [PATCH] [net/irda]: new Blackfin on-chip SIR IrDA driver

[gyang <graf.yang@analog.com>]

On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 06:43 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 05:56, graff yang wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 03:29,  <graff.yang@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> +static int __devinit bfin_sir_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>> +{
> >>> +       struct net_device *dev;
> >>> +       struct bfin_sir_self *self;
> >>> +       unsigned int baudrate_mask;
> >>> +       struct bfin_sir_port *sir_port;
> >>> +       int err;
> >>> +
> >>> +       err = peripheral_request_list(per[pdev->id], DRIVER_NAME);
> >>
> >> what if pdev->id is set to 12512 ?
> >
> > The pdev->id is defined in board files, for example, uart0 should be 0.
> 
> so ?  what's to stop the user from setting it to 12415 ?  the driver
> must sanity check these things.  you can never assume platform dev
> resources always have valid pointers and valid values.

How about to limit the pdev->id to be 0,1,2,3 ?
I can extend the per to be 
static const unsigned short per[][4] = {
        {P_UART0_RX, P_UART0_TX, 0, 0},
        {P_UART1_RX, P_UART1_TX, 0, 1},
        {P_UART2_RX, P_UART2_TX, 0, 2},
        {P_UART3_RX, P_UART3_TX, 0, 3},
};

then check (pdev->id >= 0 && pdev->id < ARRAY_SIZE(per) &&
per[pdev->id][3] == pdev->id)


> 
> >>> +       switch (max_rate) {
> >>> +       default:
> >>> +               printk(KERN_WARNING "bfin_sir: Invalid maximum baud rate, using 9600\n");
> >>
> >> dev_warn(&dev->dev,....) ?
> >
> > Here the netdev has not been registered.
> 
> then use pdev->dev ?
Don't it seem strange to mixed use dev_warn(&dev->dev, ...) and
dev_warn(&pdev->dev, ...) ? And printk is enough.

> -mike