On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:14:36 -0700
Anand Ashok Dumbre <anand.ashok.dumbre@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Fixes IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL for case when the result is negative and
> exponent is 0.
>
> example: if the result is -0.75, tmp0 will be 0 and tmp1 = 75
> This causes the output to lose sign because of %d in snprintf
> which works for tmp0 <= -1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Ashok Dumbre <anand.ashok.dumbre@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good. Just one last thing.
Is this actually hit in an existing driver? I'm just wondering
how far back we need to push it in stable etc.
Thanks,
Jonathan
> ---
> changes since v1:
> Changed -%d to -0 to make the fix clearer.
> Removed the email footer.
> Updated the commit description with an example
> --
> drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> index cdcd16f1..a239fa2 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> @@ -592,6 +592,7 @@ static ssize_t __iio_format_value(char *buf, size_t len, unsigned int type,
> {
> unsigned long long tmp;
> int tmp0, tmp1;
> + s64 tmp2;
> bool scale_db = false;
>
> switch (type) {
> @@ -614,10 +615,13 @@ static ssize_t __iio_format_value(char *buf, size_t len, unsigned int type,
> else
> return scnprintf(buf, len, "%d.%09u", vals[0], vals[1]);
> case IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL:
> - tmp = div_s64((s64)vals[0] * 1000000000LL, vals[1]);
> + tmp2 = div_s64((s64)vals[0] * 1000000000LL, vals[1]);
> tmp1 = vals[1];
> tmp0 = (int)div_s64_rem(tmp, 1000000000, &tmp1);
> - return scnprintf(buf, len, "%d.%09u", tmp0, abs(tmp1));
> + if ((tmp2 < 0) && (tmp0 == 0))
> + return snprintf(buf, len, "-0.%09u", abs(tmp1));
> + else
> + return snprintf(buf, len, "%d.%09u", tmp0, abs(tmp1));
> case IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2:
> tmp = shift_right((s64)vals[0] * 1000000000LL, vals[1]);
> tmp0 = (int)div_s64_rem(tmp, 1000000000LL, &tmp1);
