On 31/10/2024 23:47, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 09:13:16 +0200
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Zicheng,
Thanks for the patch.
On 31/10/2024 03:45, Zicheng Qu wrote:
Initialize the variable ret at the time of declaration to prevent it from
being returned without a defined value. Fixes smatch warning:
drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c:256 gain_to_scaletables() error:
uninitialized symbol 'ret'.
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v6.6+
Fixes: 38416c28e168 ("iio: light: Add gain-time-scale helpers")
Signed-off-by: Zicheng Qu <quzicheng@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c
index 59d7615c0f56..c5dc5b51693d 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static int iio_gts_gain_cmp(const void *a, const void *b)
static int gain_to_scaletables(struct iio_gts *gts, int **gains, int **scales)
{
- int ret, i, j, new_idx, time_idx;
+ int i, j, new_idx, time_idx, ret = 0;
int *all_gains;
size_t gain_bytes;
So, if I read it right, this handles a (corner) case where there is no
times given. I am not sure how well such use has been considered because
the point of GTS is helping out with cases where the gain and
integration time both impact to scale.
How do you see the benefits of the gts if there is no such shared impact
to scale? Sure the gts could still provide the 'standard table format'
to present the gains (or times), and conversions from the register
values to gains (or times), and perhaps the available scale table(s) -
but I suppose it also brings a lot of unused code and some
initialization overhead. (I have a vague feeling this was discussed with
Jonathan during the reviews).
Reason I am asking these questions is that I wonder if the usage should
be limited to cases where we have both gains and times? We could check
this in the iio_gts_sanity_check(). (And, I am actually a bit surprized
this check was not implemented).
Well, initialization fixes a potential bug here and does not really cost
much - so big thanks to you :)
Reviewed-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx>
Indeed I'm not convinced this is a a bug that can be hit, but it is
obviously good hardening so applied to the fixes togreg branch of iio.git.
Note I'd like a follow up to use __free() + early returns in this function.
Will reduce complexity and that last line will become a return 0;
I suppose it is time for me to adapt to use the __cleanup based
helpers... I'll add this to my TODO-list :)
Yours,
-- Matti
