Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Scally <> | Date | Sat, 31 Jul 2021 22:36:14 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] device property: Check fwnode->secondary in fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint() |
| |
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:34 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > 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);
Yes, no problem. I'll send a v2 when I can, It will likely be another week or so though, my computer's in a cardboard box.
> > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > >
| |