Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:50:00 +0530 | From | Pratyush Yadav <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 03/11] mtd: spi-nor: core: Use auto-detection only once |
| |
On 21/04/22 01:41PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: > 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.
Did you get a chance to try this out? If it works fine, I would like to apply it.
> > > >> > >>> + else if (IS_ERR(info)) > >>> return PTR_ERR(info); > >>> > >>> nor->info = info; > >> > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Pratyush Yadav > > Texas Instruments Inc. >
-- Regards, Pratyush Yadav Texas Instruments Inc.
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |