Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:06:44 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mfd: sprd-sc27xx-spi: Fix divide by zero when
 allocating register offset/mask
Message-ID: <20200629130644.GU3334@localhost>
References: <20200629123215.1014747-1-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20200629123215.1014747-5-lee.jones@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200629123215.1014747-5-lee.jones@linaro.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:32:14PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> Since ddata->irqs[] is already zeroed when allocated by devm_kcalloc() and
> dividing 0 by anything is still 0, there is no need to re-assign
> ddata->irqs[i].* values.  Instead, it should be safe to begin at 1.
> 
> This fixes the following W=1 warning:
> 
>  drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c:255 sprd_pmic_probe() debug: sval_binop_unsigned: divide by zero
> 
> Cc: Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@gmail.com>
> Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>
> Cc: Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c b/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> index c305e941e435c..694a7d429ccff 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ static int sprd_pmic_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	ddata->irq_chip.irqs = ddata->irqs;
> -	for (i = 0; i < pdata->num_irqs; i++) {
> +	for (i = 1; i < pdata->num_irqs; i++) {
>  		ddata->irqs[i].reg_offset = i / pdata->num_irqs;
>  		ddata->irqs[i].mask = BIT(i % pdata->num_irqs);
>  	}

This doesn't look right either.

First, the loop is never executed if num_irqs is zero.

Second, the current code looks bogus too as reg_offset is always set to
zero and mask to BIT(i)...

Johan