Just inspecting the code doesn't convince me that this is a real issue, but the tools complain that it is so I will just handle it. Cc: Tzuyi Chang <tychang@xxxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309270234.aJGlDE0P-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/pinctrl/realtek/pinctrl-rtd.c | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/realtek/pinctrl-rtd.c b/drivers/pinctrl/realtek/pinctrl-rtd.c index bafe27face80..fc27e4f61be1 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/realtek/pinctrl-rtd.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/realtek/pinctrl-rtd.c @@ -165,7 +165,10 @@ static int rtd_pinctrl_set_one_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pcdev, return 0; if (!mux->functions) { - dev_err(pcdev->dev, "No functions available for pin %s\n", mux->name); + if (!mux->name) + dev_err(pcdev->dev, "NULL pin has no functions\n"); + else + dev_err(pcdev->dev, "No functions available for pin %s\n", mux->name); return -ENOTSUPP; } @@ -177,6 +180,11 @@ static int rtd_pinctrl_set_one_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pcdev, return ret; } + if (!mux->name) { + dev_err(pcdev->dev, "NULL pin provided for function %s\n", func_name); + return -EINVAL; + } + dev_err(pcdev->dev, "No function %s available for pin %s\n", func_name, mux->name); return -EINVAL; -- 2.34.1