lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] i2c: imx: Remove a useless test in 'i2c_imx_init_recovery_info()'
From
Date
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
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-08 09:41    [W:0.038 / U:4.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site