Commit fffba64c authored by Phil Carmody's avatar Phil Carmody Committed by Samuel Ortiz

mfd: Fix error in wm8400 reg cache access check

Accessing num_reg elements in the interval [reg .. reg+num_regs)
is permitted if (reg+numregs <= array size), so barf when that
excluded upper bound is > array size. The prior -1 would give
access to one too many elements.
Signed-off-by: default avatarPhil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSamuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>
parent da1e3680
...@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static int wm8400_read(struct wm8400 *wm8400, u8 reg, int num_regs, u16 *dest) ...@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static int wm8400_read(struct wm8400 *wm8400, u8 reg, int num_regs, u16 *dest)
{ {
int i, ret = 0; int i, ret = 0;
BUG_ON(reg + num_regs - 1 > ARRAY_SIZE(wm8400->reg_cache)); BUG_ON(reg + num_regs > ARRAY_SIZE(wm8400->reg_cache));
/* If there are any volatile reads then read back the entire block */ /* If there are any volatile reads then read back the entire block */
for (i = reg; i < reg + num_regs; i++) for (i = reg; i < reg + num_regs; i++)
...@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static int wm8400_write(struct wm8400 *wm8400, u8 reg, int num_regs, ...@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static int wm8400_write(struct wm8400 *wm8400, u8 reg, int num_regs,
{ {
int ret, i; int ret, i;
BUG_ON(reg + num_regs - 1 > ARRAY_SIZE(wm8400->reg_cache)); BUG_ON(reg + num_regs > ARRAY_SIZE(wm8400->reg_cache));
for (i = 0; i < num_regs; i++) { for (i = 0; i < num_regs; i++) {
BUG_ON(!reg_data[reg + i].writable); BUG_ON(!reg_data[reg + i].writable);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment