[PATCH v7 01/16] pinctrl: check the return value of pinmux_ops::get_function_name()

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 3:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 01:59:10PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski at linaro.org>
> >
> > While the API contract in docs doesn't specify it explicitly,
>
> So, why not to amend the doc at the same time?
>

Because this series is already big as is. That would be another commit
that can be separate.

> > the generic implementation of the get_function_name() callback from struct
> > pinmux_ops - pinmux_generic_get_function_name() - can fail and return
> > NULL. This is already checked in pinmux_check_ops() so add a similar
> > check in pinmux_func_name_to_selector() instead of passing the returned
> > pointer right down to strcmp() where the NULL can get dereferenced. This
> > is normal operation when adding new pinfunctions.
>
> Fixes?

This has always been like that.

> Reported?

I mean, technically Mark Brown reported my previous patch failing but
I don't think we do this if we're still within the same series just
another iteration?

> Closes?

Ditto.

>
> ...
>
> >       while (selector < nfuncs) {
> >               const char *fname = ops->get_function_name(pctldev, selector);
> >
> > -             if (!strcmp(function, fname))
> > +             if (fname && !strcmp(function, fname))
> >                       return selector;
>
> I would slightly refactor this:
>
>                 const char *fname;
>
>                 fname = ops->get_function_name(pctldev, selector);
>                 if (fname && !strcmp(function, fname))
>                         return selector;
>
> >               selector++;
>

You can do this in a subsequent patch, I prefer a smaller diff personally.

Bartosz