Hi Geert, On 2018-06-27 10:27:54 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Niklas, > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:01 AM Niklas Söderlund > <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Not all SoCs describes the drive strength registers. When reading the > > sysfs pinconf-pins file on such a SoC this results in a null pointer > > dereference. Protect against this dereference and allow reading of the > > pinconf-pins by adding a check if the drive strength registers are > > described or not. > > > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for your patch! > > > This was found on the Eagle board and is based on the latest > > renesas/devel branch. > > I think the real issue is pfc-r8a77990.c setting SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH > without providing sh_pfc.drive_regs[]. > Without that flag set, sh_pfc_pinconf_validate(..., PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH) > would cause an earlier failure. Ahh I see, thanks for the pointer. I will explore this option as it seems like a nicer solution, thanks! > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pinctrl.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pinctrl.c > > @@ -483,6 +483,9 @@ static u32 sh_pfc_pinconf_find_drive_strength_reg(struct sh_pfc *pfc, > > const struct pinmux_drive_reg *reg; > > unsigned int i; > > > > + if (!pfc->info->drive_regs) > > + return 0; > > + > > for (reg = pfc->info->drive_regs; reg->reg; ++reg) { > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(reg->fields); ++i) { > > field = ®->fields[i]; > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds -- Regards, Niklas Söderlund -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html