On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 04:51:24PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 04:45:57PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 03:11:33PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 03:05:25PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:37:32AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > Hello Mika Westerberg, > > > > > > > > > > The patch 473ed7be0da0: "gpio / ACPI: Add support for ACPI GPIO > > > > > operation regions" from Mar 14, 2014, leads to the following static > > > > > checker warning: > > > > > > > > > > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c:454 acpi_gpio_adr_space_handler() > > > > > warn: should 'gpiod_get_raw_value(desc) << i' be a 64 bit type? > > > > > > > > Thanks for the report. However, I'm not able to reproduce this warning > > > > with > > > > sparse. How did you get this? > > > > > > It's not a Sparse warning. It's some unreleased stuff (too many false > > > positives). I sort through the warnings manually and send the ones > > > which seem valid. > > > > I see. > > > > What do you think about the patch below? I have to admit that this kind of > > stuff is in my "gray" area of understanding. > > It looks good to me. The question, I guess is can pin_table_length ever > be more than 31. gpiod_get_raw_value() returns and int of 0-1 so > if "i" is 31 then *value is an unexpected number because the shift is > undefined (it wraps around in GCC).
It can be larger than 31 so I guess I'll submit this patch to LinusW. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
