On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 08:41:38AM -0600, Wenjia Zhao wrote: > Signed-off-by: Wenjia Zhao <driverfuzzing@xxxxxxxxx> There should be a patch description here explaining why the patch is needed and how it works. > --- > drivers/video/backlight/pcf50633-backlight.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pcf50633-backlight.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pcf50633-backlight.c > index 540dd338..43267af 100644 > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pcf50633-backlight.c > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pcf50633-backlight.c > @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ static int pcf50633_bl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pcf_bl); > > - pcf50633_reg_write(pcf_bl->pcf, PCF50633_REG_LEDDIM, pdata->ramp_time); > + if (pdata) > + pcf50633_reg_write(pcf_bl->pcf, PCF50633_REG_LEDDIM, pdata->ramp_time); Assuming you found this issue using a static analyzer then I think it might be better to if an "if (!pdata) return -EINVAL" further up the file instead. In other words it is better to "document" (via the return code) that the code does not support pdata == NULL than to add another untested code path. Daniel. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
