Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:34:31 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] device property: Check fwnode->secondary in fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint() |
| |
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 02:04:59PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > > On 23/07/2021 13:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 09:19:28PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > >> Sensor drivers often check for an endpoint to make sure that they're > >> connected to a consuming device like a CIO2 during .probe(). Some of > >> those endpoints might be in the form of software_nodes assigned as > >> a secondary to the device's fwnode_handle. Account for this possibility > >> in fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint() to avoid having to do it in the > >> sensor drivers themselves. > > ... > > > >> + ep = fwnode_call_ptr_op(parent, graph_get_next_endpoint, prev); > >> + > >> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ep) && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent) && > >> + !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent->secondary)) > > Nit-pick, I would put it like: > > > > if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent->secondary) && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent) && > > IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ep)) > > > > or > > > > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ep) && > > !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent->secondary) && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent)) > > > > for the sake of logical split. > > > OK; I'll do the second one, feel like it's better to have ep as the > first check.
Fine, but also I have just noticed that parent should be checked before parent->secondary.
Something like this
if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ep) && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent) && IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent->secondary))
> >> + ep = fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint(parent->secondary, NULL);
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |