[PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements

[PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements

[Rhyland Klein]

When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for
FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in
max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namely,
in the case of chip->chip_id == MAX77620, it will set
fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case
and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will
cause probe to fail.

Signed-off-by: Rhyland Klein <rklein@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/mfd/max77620.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/max77620.c b/drivers/mfd/max77620.c
index 199d261990be..f32fbb8e8129 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/max77620.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/max77620.c
@@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ static int max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(struct max77620_chip *chip,
 		break;
 	case MAX77620:
 		fps_min_period = MAX77620_FPS_PERIOD_MIN_US;
+		break;
 	default:
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
@@ -236,6 +237,7 @@ static int max77620_config_fps(struct max77620_chip *chip,
 		break;
 	case MAX77620:
 		fps_max_period = MAX77620_FPS_PERIOD_MAX_US;
+		break;
 	default:
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements

[Laxman Dewangan]

On Thursday 12 May 2016 11:15 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for
> FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in
> max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namely,
> in the case of chip->chip_id == MAX77620, it will set
> fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case
> and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will
> cause probe to fail.
>

Thanks for fixes.
Missed when converting if-else to switch.

Reviewed-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>

Re: [PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements

[Rhyland Klein]

On 5/12/2016 1:52 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 12 May 2016 11:15 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>> When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for
>> FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in
>> max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namely,
>> in the case of chip->chip_id == MAX77620, it will set
>> fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case
>> and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will
>> cause probe to fail.
>>
> 
> Thanks for fixes.
> Missed when converting if-else to switch.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
> 

Lee, I noticed this hasn't been merged yet, but without it platforms
using the max77620 can easily (if it has FPS nodes) fail to probe. Is
there anything blocking it?

-rhyland

-- 
nvpublic

Re: [PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements

[Lee Jones]

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Rhyland Klein wrote:

> On 5/12/2016 1:52 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> > 
> > On Thursday 12 May 2016 11:15 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> >> When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for
> >> FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in
> >> max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namely,
> >> in the case of chip->chip_id == MAX77620, it will set
> >> fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case
> >> and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will
> >> cause probe to fail.
> >>
> > 
> > Thanks for fixes.
> > Missed when converting if-else to switch.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
> > 
> 
> Lee, I noticed this hasn't been merged yet, but without it platforms
> using the max77620 can easily (if it has FPS nodes) fail to probe. Is
> there anything blocking it?

Yes, it was sent too late in the cycle.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements

[Rhyland Klein]

On 5/31/2016 3:30 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> 
>> On 5/12/2016 1:52 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday 12 May 2016 11:15 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>>> When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for
>>>> FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in
>>>> max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namely,
>>>> in the case of chip->chip_id == MAX77620, it will set
>>>> fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case
>>>> and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will
>>>> cause probe to fail.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for fixes.
>>> Missed when converting if-else to switch.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>
>> Lee, I noticed this hasn't been merged yet, but without it platforms
>> using the max77620 can easily (if it has FPS nodes) fail to probe. Is
>> there anything blocking it?
> 
> Yes, it was sent too late in the cycle.
> 

Ok, thanks.

-rhyland

-- 
nvpublic

Re: [PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1267 bytes --]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 08:30:22AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> 
> > On 5/12/2016 1:52 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thursday 12 May 2016 11:15 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> > >> When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for
> > >> FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in
> > >> max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namely,
> > >> in the case of chip->chip_id == MAX77620, it will set
> > >> fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case
> > >> and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will
> > >> cause probe to fail.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > Thanks for fixes.
> > > Missed when converting if-else to switch.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
> > > 
> > 
> > Lee, I noticed this hasn't been merged yet, but without it platforms
> > using the max77620 can easily (if it has FPS nodes) fail to probe. Is
> > there anything blocking it?
> 
> Yes, it was sent too late in the cycle.

Can we still have this for v4.7? It's clearly -rc material.

Reviewed-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
Tested-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 12 May 2016, Rhyland Klein wrote:

> When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for
> FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in
> max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namely,
> in the case of chip->chip_id == MAX77620, it will set
> fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case
> and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will
> cause probe to fail.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rhyland Klein <rklein@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/max77620.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Applied to -fixes with Thierry and Laxman's Acks.

> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/max77620.c b/drivers/mfd/max77620.c
> index 199d261990be..f32fbb8e8129 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/max77620.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/max77620.c
> @@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ static int max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(struct max77620_chip *chip,
>  		break;
>  	case MAX77620:
>  		fps_min_period = MAX77620_FPS_PERIOD_MIN_US;
> +		break;
>  	default:
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
> @@ -236,6 +237,7 @@ static int max77620_config_fps(struct max77620_chip *chip,
>  		break;
>  	case MAX77620:
>  		fps_max_period = MAX77620_FPS_PERIOD_MAX_US;
> +		break;
>  	default:
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements

[Rhyland Klein]

On 6/7/2016 4:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2016, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> 
>> When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for
>> FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in
>> max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namely,
>> in the case of chip->chip_id == MAX77620, it will set
>> fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case
>> and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will
>> cause probe to fail.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rhyland Klein <rklein@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/mfd/max77620.c | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> Applied to -fixes with Thierry and Laxman's Acks.
> 

I don't see this in linux-next yet (as of 20160614). Can we get this
merged there to.

-rhyland

-- 
nvpublic

Re: [PATCH] mfd: max77620: Fix FPS switch statements

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Rhyland Klein <rklein@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/2016 4:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2016, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>
>>> When configuring FPS during probe, assuming a DT node is present for
>>> FPS, the code can run into a problem with the switch statements in
>>> max77620_config_fps() and max77620_get_fps_period_reg_value(). Namely,
>>> in the case of chip->chip_id == MAX77620, it will set
>>> fps_[mix|max]_period but then fall through to the default switch case
>>> and return -EINVAL. Returning this from max77620_config_fps() will
>>> cause probe to fail.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rhyland Klein <rklein@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/mfd/max77620.c | 2 ++
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> Applied to -fixes with Thierry and Laxman's Acks.
>>
>
> I don't see this in linux-next yet (as of 20160614). Can we get this
> merged there to.

Was about to say the same thing. FWIW:

Tested-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>