On 12/24, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:05:53PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 12/18/13 10:45, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > This doesn't quite work - val is an array of objects of the size of the
> > > size of a register not of unsigned integers so you're parsing extra data
> > > out there. That possibly wasn't the best choice of API but we have
> > > quite a few users now so ick.
>
> > Are you concerned that we'll read past the end of the val buffer? Do we
> > need to cast the pointer to be the appropriate size according to
> > val_bytes? Something like this?
>
> That's one issue, the other is that if we try to read (say) and 8 bit
> value as an unsigned int we'll not just read the value we're looking
> for.
Ah right. My no-bus implementation was clearing out the upper 24
bits of the word so I could just send the u8 value. With this
approach that isn't necessary.
>
> > for (i = 0; i < val_count; i++) {
> > unsigned int ival;
> >
> > switch (val_bytes) {
> > case 1:
> > ival = *(u8 *)(val + (i * val_bytes));
> > break;
>
> I think we do sadly. Or refactor the API to work in unsigned ints
> which would've been more sensible in the first place but that'd make it
> asymmetrical with the read API as it stands...
Ok it sounds like you're willing to go with this updated loop.
I'll resend a proper patch.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
