From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754152AbeDTIjP (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:39:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f181.google.com ([209.85.128.181]:43945 "EHLO mail-wr0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753918AbeDTIjN (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:39:13 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/46dPh0DlP5s2tmH3GNV8Rf6hA31Pr/lnVPUNX0SykqoF4NKvMGRpfWpJDd4lsYiG98kyVmg== Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:39:09 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Jorge Eduardo Candelaria , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: tps65911-comparator: Fix an off by one bug Message-ID: <20180420083909.66a6t63s5q6vpwp7@dell> References: <20180419134634.GA19793@mwanda> <20180420080943.jdbf7vtnkc33vbvd@dell> <20180420082150.u2oovqr4b4fd6vrq@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180420082150.u2oovqr4b4fd6vrq@mwanda> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 09:09:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > The tps_comparators[] array is used in two places. We only access the > > > COMP1 (1) and COMP2 (2) elements. Unfortunately, we're accessing the > > > wrong elements and also one element beyond the end of the array. There > > > was supposed to be a zero element at the start of the array which is > > > isn't accessed but makes the math work out nicely. > > > > I normally just apply patches from you, but this is a hack, right? > > I liked it, I thought it was nice. It uses 32 bytes but any fix was > going to use *some* memory. I don't have strong feelings about it > though, if you want to write a different patch I can do that instead. #define COMP 0 #define COMP1 1 #define COMP2 2 It's unclear what the defines mean, but if COMP really does exist (is there a datasheet for this device?) then your solution is a suitable one. However, if there is a COMP, then why isn't it used? If it doesn't actually exist then this would be more appropriate change I think: #define COMP1 0 #define COMP2 1 -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog