Dear All,
Is this patch ok?
Thanks,
Fab
> From: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 10 September 2018 11:43
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3][can-next] can: rcar_can: Fix erroneous registration
>
> Assigning 2 to "renesas,can-clock-select" tricks the driver into
> registering the CAN interface, even though we don't want that.
> This patch improves one of the checks to prevent that from happening.
>
> Fixes: 862e2b6af9413b43 ("can: rcar_can: support all input clocks")
> Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> v1->v2:
> * dropped id specific data as per Geert's comments
>
> This patch applies on top of linux-can-next-for-4.19-20180727.
>
> drivers/net/can/rcar/rcar_can.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/rcar/rcar_can.c b/drivers/net/can/rcar/rcar_can.c
> index 11662f4..771a460 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/rcar/rcar_can.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/rcar/rcar_can.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,9 @@
>
> #define RCAR_CAN_DRV_NAME"rcar_can"
>
> +#define RCAR_SUPPORTED_CLOCKS(BIT(CLKR_CLKP1) | BIT(CLKR_CLKP2) | \
> + BIT(CLKR_CLKEXT))
> +
> /* Mailbox configuration:
> * mailbox 60 - 63 - Rx FIFO mailboxes
> * mailbox 56 - 59 - Tx FIFO mailboxes
> @@ -789,7 +792,7 @@ static int rcar_can_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> goto fail_clk;
> }
>
> -if (clock_select >= ARRAY_SIZE(clock_names)) {
> +if (!(BIT(clock_select) & RCAR_SUPPORTED_CLOCKS)) {
> err = -EINVAL;
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid CAN clock selected\n");
> goto fail_clk;
> --
> 2.7.4
Renesas Electronics Europe Ltd, Dukes Meadow, Millboard Road, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, SL8 5FH, UK. Registered in England & Wales under Registered No. 04586709.
