Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] reset: Make optional stuff optional for all users | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:23:24 +0300 |
| |
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 17:09 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 14:33 +0000, Shevchenko, Andriy wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 17:31 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:27 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > > > > > > > > int rstc_id; > > > > > int ret; > > > > > > > > > > - if (!node) > > > > > - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > > > - > > > > > > > > This should be > > > > > > > > if (!node) > > > > return optional ? NULL : ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > > > > > > instead. Can you confirm this works for Intel boards with DW > > > > UART? I > > > > can > > > > fix it up when applying if you agree. > > > > > > I don't think it worth to change. I specifically checked all of_* > > > calls > > > in that function and they cope pretty nice with node == NULL. > > __of_reset_control_get called with id != NULL calls > of_property_match_string first, which then returns -EINVAL if > node == NULL, which makes __of_reset_control_get return NULL if > optional > or -ENOENT otherwise, even though the correct return value would be > -EINVAL in the DT case.
Error handling mess as usual. :-)
> > __of_reset_control_get called with id == NULL calls > of_parse_phandle_with_args first, which calls > __of_parse_phandle_with_args, which returns an undefined value if > np == NULL, as far as I can tell: > of_for_each_phandle first calls of_phandle_iterator_init, which, when > called with np == NULL clears the iterator structure returns -ENOENT. > The return value is ignored in the of_for_each_phandle macro, and > of_phandle_iterator_next is then called and returns -ENOENT because > it->cur == NULL, ending the loop without ever assigning a value to rc. > __of_parse_phandle_with_args then returns the uninitialized value.
It returns -ENOENT. Error value is kept in function variable rc.
> > The point being, instead of having to regularly forage through a > number > of of_ API functions to make sure my expectations are still met, I'd > prefer to keep the check in place.
I would not insist, I already shared my view on this.
I really don't like ping-ponging of the code. Perhaps you would fix it once for the best now?
> > > > > > > So, I rather to go with my initial change. > > > > > > > Hit Enter before closing another thought. > > > > When you come with solution where this __of_reset_control_get() will > > be > > called only for node != NULL case you will not need that check > > either. > > __of_reset_control_get is public API (via of_reset_control_get), so I > can't guarantee node != NULL even in the DT case.
Yes, and that's why other callees will return some error codes there.
> > > So, I would go my solution because of two benefits: > > - it fixes bug > > True. > > > - if will not bring ping-ponging code > > Unfortunately not.
Fortunately yes, if someone will fix DT error code mess in the first place.
-- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
| |