Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:35:59 -0500 (EST) | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] picolcd: driver for PicoLCD HID device |
| |
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Bruno [UTF-8] Prémont wrote:
> Is something like below acceptable? (from error handling point of view > it makes no difference...) > > Thanks, > Bruno > > file: drivers/hid/hid-core.c > > int hid_add_device(struct hid_device *hdev) > { > static atomic_t id = ATOMIC_INIT(0); > int ret; > > if (WARN_ON(hdev->status & HID_STAT_ADDED)) > return -EBUSY; > > /* we need to kill them here, otherwise they will stay allocated to > * wait for coming driver */ > if (hid_ignore(hdev)) > return -ENODEV; > > /* XXX hack, any other cleaner solution after the driver core > * is converted to allow more than 20 bytes as the device name? */ > dev_set_name(&hdev->dev, "%04X:%04X:%04X.%04X", hdev->bus, > hdev->vendor, hdev->product, atomic_inc_return(&id)); > > + hid_debug_register(hdev, dev_name(&hdev->dev)); > ret = device_add(&hdev->dev); > if (!ret) > hdev->status |= HID_STAT_ADDED; > > - hid_debug_register(hdev, dev_name(&hdev->dev)); > > return ret; > }
If the device_add() fails, you should undo the hid_debug_register() call.
Alan Stern
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |