On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 03:29:31PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 3:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 01:59:10PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > >
> > > While the API contract in docs doesn't specify it explicitly,
> >
> > So, why not to amend the doc at the same time?
>
> Because this series is already big as is. That would be another commit
> that can be separate.
I meant _in the same_ patch.
> > > the generic implementation of the get_function_name() callback from struct
> > > pinmux_ops - pinmux_generic_get_function_name() - can fail and return
> > > NULL. This is already checked in pinmux_check_ops() so add a similar
> > > check in pinmux_func_name_to_selector() instead of passing the returned
> > > pointer right down to strcmp() where the NULL can get dereferenced. This
> > > is normal operation when adding new pinfunctions.
> > Fixes?
>
> This has always been like that.
>
> > Reported?
>
> I mean, technically Mark Brown reported my previous patch failing but
> I don't think we do this if we're still within the same series just
> another iteration?
>
> > Closes?
>
> Ditto.
I meant that this fixes a potential issue disregard to your series, right?
...
> > > while (selector < nfuncs) {
> > > const char *fname = ops->get_function_name(pctldev, selector);
> > >
> > > - if (!strcmp(function, fname))
> > > + if (fname && !strcmp(function, fname))
> > > return selector;
> >
> > I would slightly refactor this:
> >
> > const char *fname;
> >
> > fname = ops->get_function_name(pctldev, selector);
> > if (fname && !strcmp(function, fname))
> > return selector;
> >
> > > selector++;
> >
>
> You can do this in a subsequent patch, I prefer a smaller diff personally.
Sure.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
