Commit 309b32fb authored by Uwe Kleine-König's avatar Uwe Kleine-König Committed by Thierry Reding

pwm: Don't use memcmp() to compare state variables

Given that struct pwm_state is sparse (at least on some platforms),
variables of this type might represent the same state because all fields
are pairwise identical but still memcmp() returns a difference because
some of the unused bits are different.

To prevent surprises compare member by member instead of the whole
occupied memory.
Signed-off-by: default avatarUwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
parent bfeffd15
......@@ -472,7 +472,10 @@ int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, struct pwm_state *state)
state->duty_cycle > state->period)
return -EINVAL;
if (!memcmp(state, &pwm->state, sizeof(*state)))
if (state->period == pwm->state.period &&
state->duty_cycle == pwm->state.duty_cycle &&
state->polarity == pwm->state.polarity &&
state->enabled == pwm->state.enabled)
return 0;
if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) {
......
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