Hello Dan,
On 12 October 2016 at 08:07, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Crt Mori,
>
> The patch 67516074884b: "iio: fetch and enable regulators
> unconditionally" from Sep 5, 2016, leads to the following static
> checker warning:
>
> drivers/iio/pressure/ms5611_core.c:419 ms5611_init()
> error: 'st->vdd' dereferencing possible ERR_PTR()
>
> drivers/iio/pressure/ms5611_core.c
> 388 static int ms5611_init(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> 389 {
> 390 int ret;
> 391 struct ms5611_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> 392
> 393 /* Enable attached regulator if any. */
> 394 st->vdd = devm_regulator_get(indio_dev->dev.parent, "vdd");
> 395 if (!IS_ERR(st->vdd)) {
> 396 ret = regulator_enable(st->vdd);
> 397 if (ret) {
> 398 dev_err(indio_dev->dev.parent,
> 399 "failed to enable Vdd supply: %d\n", ret);
> 400 return ret;
> 401 }
> 402 } else {
> 403 ret = PTR_ERR(st->vdd);
> 404 if (ret != -ENODEV)
> 405 return ret;
>
> You probably want to update this chunk as well? Otherwise static
> checkers think we're dereferencing -ENODEV.
Can you explain a bit more why they would think of it like that and
what would better proposal be like?
ret is a return value and it is st->vdd pointer is checked for error
before we deduct error information out, so I do not see where
dereferencing takes part?
>
> 406 }
> 407
> 408 ret = ms5611_reset(indio_dev);
> 409 if (ret < 0)
> 410 goto err_regulator_disable;
> 411
> 412 ret = ms5611_read_prom(indio_dev);
> 413 if (ret < 0)
> 414 goto err_regulator_disable;
> 415
> 416 return 0;
> 417
> 418 err_regulator_disable:
> 419 regulator_disable(st->vdd);
> 420 return ret;
> 421 }
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
