On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:28:04AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 09/10/2019 17:35, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:51:08AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> > > +static const u8 wsa881x_reg_readable[WSA881X_CACHE_SIZE] = {
> > > +static bool wsa881x_readable_register(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> > > +{
> > > + return wsa881x_reg_readable[reg];
> > There's no bounds check and that array size is not...
> I converted this now to a proper switch statement as other drivers do.
> > > +static struct regmap_config wsa881x_regmap_config = {
> > > + .reg_bits = 32,
> > > + .val_bits = 8,
> > > + .cache_type = REGCACHE_RBTREE,
> > > + .reg_defaults = wsa881x_defaults,
> > > + .num_reg_defaults = ARRAY_SIZE(wsa881x_defaults),
> > > + .max_register = WSA881X_MAX_REGISTER,
> > ...what regmap has as max_register. Uusually you'd render as a
> > switch statement (as you did for volatile) and let the compiler
> > figure out a sensible way to do the lookup.
> Sorry, I did not get your point here.
> Are you saying that we can skip max_register in this regmap config ?
> Then how would max_register in regmap be set?
I'm saying that you appear to be relying on max_register to
verify that you're not overflowing the array bounds but you
max_register is not set to the same thing as the array size.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
