Convert to use devm_kmemdup_array() which is more robust.

Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
---
 drivers/regulator/cros-ec-regulator.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/cros-ec-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/cros-ec-regulator.c
index fb9643ed7a49..38afd4b3d2d0 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/cros-ec-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/cros-ec-regulator.c
@@ -138,8 +138,8 @@ static int cros_ec_regulator_init_info(struct device *dev,
 	data->num_voltages =
 		min_t(u16, ARRAY_SIZE(resp.voltages_mv), resp.num_voltages);
 	data->voltages_mV =
-		devm_kmemdup(dev, resp.voltages_mv,
-			     sizeof(u16) * data->num_voltages, GFP_KERNEL);
+		devm_kmemdup_array(dev, resp.voltages_mv, data->num_voltages,
+				   sizeof(u16), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!data->voltages_mV)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-- 
2.34.1

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 01:38:54PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> Convert to use devm_kmemdup_array() which is more robust.

...

>  	data->voltages_mV =
> -		devm_kmemdup(dev, resp.voltages_mv,
> -			     sizeof(u16) * data->num_voltages, GFP_KERNEL);
> +		devm_kmemdup_array(dev, resp.voltages_mv, data->num_voltages,
> +				   sizeof(u16), GFP_KERNEL);

Wondering if this can be sizeof(*data->voltages_mV) that makes code robust
against type changes.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 11:51:10AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 01:38:54PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > Convert to use devm_kmemdup_array() which is more robust.
> 
> ...
> 
> >  	data->voltages_mV =
> > -		devm_kmemdup(dev, resp.voltages_mv,
> > -			     sizeof(u16) * data->num_voltages, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +		devm_kmemdup_array(dev, resp.voltages_mv, data->num_voltages,
> > +				   sizeof(u16), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Wondering if this can be sizeof(*data->voltages_mV) that makes code robust
> against type changes.

True, but I opted for a blind treewide conversion that is consistent with
existing driver conventions. Perhaps a better place for it is a separate
filewide series?

Raag

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 12:40:23PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 11:51:10AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 01:38:54PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > Convert to use devm_kmemdup_array() which is more robust.

...

> > >  	data->voltages_mV =
> > > -		devm_kmemdup(dev, resp.voltages_mv,
> > > -			     sizeof(u16) * data->num_voltages, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +		devm_kmemdup_array(dev, resp.voltages_mv, data->num_voltages,
> > > +				   sizeof(u16), GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> > Wondering if this can be sizeof(*data->voltages_mV) that makes code robust
> > against type changes.
> 
> True, but I opted for a blind treewide conversion that is consistent with
> existing driver conventions. Perhaps a better place for it is a separate
> filewide series?

I think an additional series is just an increased churn. In this you are
changing an API in use, it's completely fine to update a parameter in
accordance with new API. I.o.w. I consider these two are coupled enough
to be semantically and logically in a single change along with the fact
that in all such case you are touching the same line(s).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko