Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:46:57 +0530 | From | Pratyush Yadav <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 03/11] mtd: spi-nor: core: Use auto-detection only once |
| |
On 21/04/22 07:18AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: > Hi, Pratyush, > > I forgot to remove few checks, would you please remove them when applying? > See below. > > On 4/20/22 13:34, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > > In case spi_nor_match_name() returned NULL, the auto detection was > > issued twice. There's no reason to try to detect the same chip twice, > > do the auto detection only once. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> > > Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> > > --- > > drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 13 ++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > > index b9cc8bbf1f62..b55d922d46dd 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > > @@ -2896,13 +2896,14 @@ static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_get_flash_info(struct spi_nor *nor, > > { > > const struct flash_info *info = NULL; > > > > - if (name) > > + if (name) { > > info = spi_nor_match_name(nor, name); > > + if (IS_ERR(info)) > > + return info; > > As Michael suggested spi_nor_match_name() returns NULL or valid entry, so this > check is not necessary, let's remove them. > > > + } > > /* Try to auto-detect if chip name wasn't specified or not found */ > > if (!info) > > - info = spi_nor_read_id(nor); > > - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info)) > > - return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT); > > + return spi_nor_read_id(nor); > > > > /* > > * If caller has specified name of flash model that can normally be > > @@ -2994,7 +2995,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char *name, > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > info = spi_nor_get_flash_info(nor, name); > > - if (IS_ERR(info)) > > + if (!info) > > + return -ENOENT; > > also according to Michael, this change is not needed as spi_nor_get_flash_info() can't > return NULL. Here we can keep the code as it was. Let me know if you want me to respin.
TBH I don't think a NULL check here hurts much since the behaviour might change later, and error paths don't get exercised as often. But I have made both changes when applying. You can double-check at [0] if you want.
[0] https://github.com/prati0100/linux-0day/commit/67d913746833ee54bf4c661040f3ef13657dffd8
> > > + else if (IS_ERR(info)) > > return PTR_ERR(info); > > > > nor->info = info; >
-- Regards, Pratyush Yadav Texas Instruments Inc.
| |