lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 04/42] drivers/dma: don't check resource with devm_ioremap_resource

> > > > >>> devm_ioremap_resource does sanity checks on the given resource. No need to
> > > > >>> duplicate this in the driver.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/tegra20-apb-dma.c b/drivers/dma/tegra20-apb-dma.c
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> > > > >>> - if (!res) {
> > > > >>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No mem resource for DMA\n");
> > > > >>> - return -EINVAL;
> > > > >>> - }
> > > > >>> -
> > > > >>> tdma->base_addr = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> > > > >>
> > > > >> One issue here is that it's not obvious just from reading the code
> > > > >> that's left behind that the "missing" error-checking of the
> > > > >> platform_get_resource() return value is OK because
> > > > >> devm_ioremap_resource() will check it "for us". Everyone now has to
> > > > >> mentally maintain a list of exceptions where it's OK not to error-check.
> > > > >
> > > > > My goal is to make not-checking the standard case with devm.
> > > >
> > > > OK, if no parameters passed to any devm function every need to be
> > > > error-checked, that'll certainly be a bit easier to remember.
> > > Okay to remove the log message and move to devm_ but I dont agree with this
> > > patch not returning error above. We shouldnt supress the error..
> >
> > The error will be reported because devm_ioremap_resource will return an
> > ERR_PTR.
> And this patch removed the check on 'res' pointer, so on failure we continue...

I don't get it. What is the difference between a manual check of res and
the directly following devm_ioremap_resource returning ERR_PTR(-EINVAL)
if res is NULL?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-13 08:41    [W:2.403 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site