Hi Maxime,
On Monday, 10 September 2018 17:16:03 EEST Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 05:26:29PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +int phy_mipi_dphy_get_default_config(unsigned long pixel_clock,
> >>>> + unsigned int bpp,
> >>>> + unsigned int lanes,
> >>>> + struct phy_configure_opts_mipi_dphy *cfg)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + unsigned long hs_clk_rate;
> >>>> + unsigned long ui;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!cfg)
> >>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>
> >>> Should we really expect cfg to be NULL ?
> >>
> >> It avoids a kernel panic and it's not in a hot patch, so I'd say yes?
> >
> > A few line below you divide by the lanes parameter without checking
> > whether it is equal to 0 first, which would also cause issues.
>
> You say that like it would be a bad thing to test for this.
>
> > I believe that invalid values in input parameters should only be handled
> > explicitly when considered acceptable for the caller to pass such values.
> > In this case a NULL cfg pointer is a bug in the caller, which would get
> > noticed during development if the kernel panics.
>
> In the common case, yes. In the case where that pointer is actually
> being lost by the caller somewhere down the line and you have to wait
> for a while before it happens, then having the driver inoperant
> instead of just having a panic seems like the right thing to do.
But why would it happen in the first place ? Why would the pointer be more
likely here to be NULL than to contain, for instance, an uninitialized value,
which we don't guard against ?
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
