| Message ID | 1355129761-8088-4-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:55:52AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > The cond-statement of this particular for() loop will always be > true as long as at least one voltage-shifting GPIO is present. > If it wasn't for the break below, we'd be stuck in a forever loop. > This patch inserts the correct cond-statement into the statement. Applied, thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/gpio-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/gpio-regulator.c index 3afa46a..5462c28 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/gpio-regulator.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/gpio-regulator.c @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ of_get_gpio_regulator_config(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np) if (!config->gpios) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); - for (i = 0; config->nr_gpios; i++) { + for (i = 0; i < config->nr_gpios; i++) { gpio = of_get_named_gpio(np, "gpios", i); if (gpio < 0) break;
The cond-statement of this particular for() loop will always be true as long as at least one voltage-shifting GPIO is present. If it wasn't for the break below, we'd be stuck in a forever loop. This patch inserts the correct cond-statement into the statement. Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> --- drivers/regulator/gpio-regulator.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)