Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] i2c: imx: Remove a useless test in 'i2c_imx_init_recovery_info()' | From | Christophe JAILLET <> | Date | Tue, 8 Aug 2017 09:40:59 +0200 |
| |
Le 07/08/2017 à 08:36, Uwe Kleine-König a écrit : > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:49:53AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: >> 'devm_pinctrl_get()' never returns NULL, so this test can be simplified. > That's wrong. If CONFIG_PINCTRL is disabled devm_pinctrl_get returns > NULL. But I think this shouldn't be considered an error, so your change > is right, just the commit log is not. With that said, in fact, I think that the test is correct as is. If CONFIG_PINCTRL is disabled, we will display an info about a missing functionality, but would still continue normally without it (i.e. return PTR_ERR(NULL) = 0 = success), as stated in the comment in front of 'i2c_imx_init_recovery_info': "These alternative pinmux settings can be described in the device tree by a separate pinctrl state "gpio". If this is missing this is not a big problem, the only implication is that we can't do bus recovery."
So, I won't propose any v2 patch with an updated commit log. Feel free to update it yourself and apply it if you don't share my analysis above.
Sorry for the noise.
CJ
> >> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c >> index 54a47b40546f..7e84662fe1c0 100644 >> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c >> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c >> @@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ static int i2c_imx_init_recovery_info(struct imx_i2c_struct *i2c_imx, >> struct i2c_bus_recovery_info *rinfo = &i2c_imx->rinfo; >> >> i2c_imx->pinctrl = devm_pinctrl_get(&pdev->dev); >> - if (!i2c_imx->pinctrl || IS_ERR(i2c_imx->pinctrl)) { >> + if (IS_ERR(i2c_imx->pinctrl)) { >> dev_info(&pdev->dev, "can't get pinctrl, bus recovery not supported\n"); >> return PTR_ERR(i2c_imx->pinctrl); >> } > Side note: I'm not sure, this construct is valid. IIRC PTR_ERR should > only be called for values x where IS_ERR(x) is true. Here it is at least > surprising that an message hints to a problem but the return code is 0. > > @Julia: I'm sure coccinelle can find more of those?! > > Best regards > Uwe >
| |