Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 03/11] mtd: spi-nor: core: Use auto-detection only once | Date | Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:41:57 +0000 |
| |
On 4/21/22 16:16, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > 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
I agree, but at the same time we're introducing checks gratuitously. Since Michael cared about it, it's fine that we removed it. I don't care too much about it.
> made both changes when applying. You can double-check at [0] if you > want.> > [0] https://github.com/prati0100/linux-0day/commit/67d913746833ee54bf4c661040f3ef13657dffd8
looks good.
btw: I think this patch https://github.com/prati0100/linux-0day/commit/b45bbff85d49529f8daff83c341a292f6c6492ca may introduce a regression on some atmel chips. Let me try it please. > >> >>> + else if (IS_ERR(info)) >>> return PTR_ERR(info); >>> >>> nor->info = info; >> > > -- > Regards, > Pratyush Yadav > Texas Instruments Inc.
| |