From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C10AC433FE for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 18:21:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232215AbiKGSVC (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2022 13:21:02 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34128 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233048AbiKGSUp (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2022 13:20:45 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com (mail-pl1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6669A21807; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 10:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id j12so11813889plj.5; Mon, 07 Nov 2022 10:20:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=o+sExAIMPm8JVwLFwxn9Pnq9+FhCqg+vP9t+InwRKjk=; b=pvzmlaQSsxRGxYF+GSOVMzNmf2OkKboBvX9lypKkoh7Aom7YLogOemd0nP+dS0CM1l cJE5dd4fz0HCkzL0dayrjk7mmoL2zqY+V6TQbduTB0yN/LteCyumTkB3WXog9VDCm9Ul J13CptBzNS0QR0s1yyoQ9EHDAGdcpaFOyEVQGtptaIXbSwOKBEJAcW0xm8MrTHWwPQY4 GWviAEhS+8oU0UUErHyDcTl/I4XlFf0AVG5QCeG+NHSvabsIBU5WUfos4efyOxjePuLq BrqqBG2sjbMSAXLavzmyKjvMRE6WKrN+F801BNAYVPx4yDaeT3K4w6b1JK025kvnfQY3 MPxw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=o+sExAIMPm8JVwLFwxn9Pnq9+FhCqg+vP9t+InwRKjk=; b=pet0IdGhA9gsDhKZgnIJnD0oQB3DJ8vAo2fzY2HKZswi3F/p1Us1hG5stJ4JgJ3hG4 hAe+KOEDbCA9lBqUFNDGWOai2niidNSWA+XedMdzOoKBrF+AzyQu92+DXbAeWXHduZwm KPlsOYRiOx+4QhUHNNw9TNCAwu/ZOIMBc7y7QJzqj9PSWllSpWAZF6c9GloBMb6xYRNi vC52IpUpBebCPyRkX6LzjV3vJPlTJZfzLC4OOEgfMSu94Gi9osVErQoQbVbmYOm5HPOL nEstWN0Q8PWU6uTV/3Lp52tyoIWM7Nat6xvc7hBpz1raap5Lp0HlUSZMbSun8sNJgkjT 2sbg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3p08+cPz9IjotPy9saE7w7ioUM9M1ZwDvBeiWO+dwyd267dlsS OFE9pyqpclBPTYPWbBJ7dC0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5GDv5ONtCfzW9yrRQvFPu79hbsAam3PpSV/9dUsyMvxCStgNdulK+oqTf2zIlHmfiENy0Vqw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4b09:b0:213:655c:158b with SMTP id lx9-20020a17090b4b0900b00213655c158bmr53296180pjb.119.1667845240692; Mon, 07 Nov 2022 10:20:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:9d:2:626:eb80:9eb9:1fd7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f14-20020a170902ce8e00b00180033438a0sm5300654plg.106.2022.11.07.10.20.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 07 Nov 2022 10:20:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 10:20:37 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] gpiolib: of: Integrate of_gpiochip_init_valid_mask() into gpiochip_init_valid_mask() Message-ID: References: <20221107161027.43384-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20221107161027.43384-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221107161027.43384-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andy, On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:10:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > +static unsigned int gpiochip_count_reserved_ranges(struct gpio_chip *gc) > +{ > + int size; > + > + size = fwnode_property_count_u32(gc->fwnode, "gpio-reserved-ranges"); I wonder if a comment why we need even size would not be helpful. > + if (size > 0 && size % 2 == 0) > + return size; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > static int gpiochip_alloc_valid_mask(struct gpio_chip *gc) > { > - if (!(of_gpio_need_valid_mask(gc) || gc->init_valid_mask)) > + if (!(gpiochip_count_reserved_ranges(gc) || gc->init_valid_mask)) > return 0; > > gc->valid_mask = gpiochip_allocate_mask(gc); > @@ -457,8 +468,47 @@ static int gpiochip_alloc_valid_mask(struct gpio_chip *gc) > return 0; > } > > +static int gpiochip_apply_reserved_ranges(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int sz) > +{ > + u32 *ranges; > + int ret; > + > + ranges = kmalloc_array(sz, sizeof(*ranges), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!ranges) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(gc->fwnode, "gpio-reserved-ranges", ranges, sz); > + if (ret) { > + kfree(ranges); > + return ret; > + } > + > + while (sz) { > + u32 count = ranges[--sz]; > + u32 start = ranges[--sz]; I know we checked sz validity, but I wonder if re-checking it in this function would not insulate us from errors creeping in after some other code refactoring. In any case, Reviewed-by: Dmitry Torokhov Thanks. -- Dmitry