On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:32:31 -0700, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 06:28:01PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> >
> > -static int ltc2978_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > - const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> > +static int ltc2978_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > {
> > int i, chip_id;
> > struct ltc2978_data *data;
> > @@ -670,10 +669,10 @@ static int ltc2978_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > return chip_id;
> >
> > data->id = chip_id;
> > - if (data->id != id->driver_data)
> > + if (strcmp(client->name, ltc2978_id[data->id].name) != 0)
>
> I was about to apply this patch, but this is problematic: It assumes that
> __stringify(id) == ltc2978_id[id].name and that ltc2978_id[id].driver_data
> == id. While that is curently the case (as far as I can see), it is still
> unsafe. I think it would be much safer to use i2c_match_id() here.
I’m not following the __stringify assumption, but I do get your point about
the driver_data being a valid index into the array; that was already baked
into the code, as
dev_warn(&client->dev,
"Device mismatch: Configured %s, detected %s\n",
client->name,
ltc2978_id[data->id].name);
but I’ll fix both.
Similar assumptions are present in other drivers here IIRC, I’ll fix those
too.
Regards,
Stephen
Attachment:
pgp35fgDOj9Lb.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
