lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] counter: stm32-lptimer-cnt: fix the check on arr and cmp registers update
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 02:27:50AM -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:36:09PM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> > The ARR (auto reload register) and CMP (compare) registers are
> > successively written. The status bits to check the update of these
> > registers are polled together with regmap_read_poll_timeout().
> > The condition to end the loop may become true, even if one of the register
> > isn't correctly updated.
> > So ensure both status bits are set before clearing them.
> >
> > Fixes: d8958824cf07 ("iio: counter: Add support for STM32 LPTimer")
> > Signed-off-by: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@foss.st.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/counter/stm32-lptimer-cnt.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/counter/stm32-lptimer-cnt.c b/drivers/counter/stm32-lptimer-cnt.c
> > index d6b80b6dfc28..8439755559b2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/counter/stm32-lptimer-cnt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/counter/stm32-lptimer-cnt.c
> > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static int stm32_lptim_set_enable_state(struct stm32_lptim_cnt *priv,
> >
> > /* ensure CMP & ARR registers are properly written */
> > ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_ISR, val,
> > - (val & STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK),
> > + (val & STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK) == STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK,
>
> This is a reasonable fix, but I don't like seeing so much happening in
> an argument list -- it's easy to misunderstand what's going on which can
> lead to further bugs the future. Pull out this condition to a dedicated
> bool variable with a comment explaining why we need the equivalence
> check (i.e. to ensure both status bits are set and not just one).
>
> William Breathitt Gray

Alternatively, you could pull out just (val & STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK)
to a separate variable and keep the equivalence condition inline if you
think it'll be clearer that way.

William Breathitt Gray
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-23 15:55    [W:0.058 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site