On 5/19/20 9:46 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 5/19/20 10:19 AM, Dan Murphy wrote:+static int bq2515x_set_ilim_lvl(struct bq2515x_device *bq2515x, int val) +{ + int i; + + if (val > BQ2515X_ILIM_MAX || val < BQ2515X_ILIM_MIN) + return -EINVAL;Clamp to these limits, not reject. Or better, modify the below loop so it clamps to the highest or lowest value in bq2515x_ilim_lvl_values[], then drop these #defines.+ + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(bq2515x_ilim_lvl_values); i++) { + if (val == bq2515x_ilim_lvl_values[i]) + break; + + if (val > bq2515x_ilim_lvl_values[i - 1] &&Index out of bounds for the i = 0 case.+ val < bq2515x_ilim_lvl_values[i]) { + if (val - bq2515x_ilim_lvl_values[i - 1] < + bq2515x_ilim_lvl_values[i] - val) {You are still missing the case where the value is closer to the [i] element, you check that it is between [i-1] and [i], but only chose [i-1] when it is closer to that than [i] but equal and greater case is missing. Given this sets input current limits, would instead always rounding down be the safer option? Andrew
ACK. I am going to rewrite that altogether.
+ i = i - 1; + break; + } + } + } + + return regmap_write(bq2515x->regmap, BQ2515X_ILIMCTRL, i); +}
