Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:12:51 +0530 | From | Pratyush Yadav <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] mtd: spi-nor: core: Use auto-detection only once |
| |
On 21/03/22 12:50PM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: > On 3/21/22 14:14, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > > On 28/02/22 01:17PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > >> In case spi_nor_match_name() returned NULL, the auto detection was > >> issued twice. There's no reason to try to detect the same chip twice, > >> do the auto detection only once. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 10 ++++++---- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > >> index f87cb7d3daab..b1d6fa65417d 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c > >> @@ -2894,13 +2894,15 @@ static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_match_name(struct spi_nor *nor, > >> static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_get_flash_info(struct spi_nor *nor, > >> const char *name) > >> { > >> - const struct flash_info *info = NULL; > >> + const struct flash_info *info = NULL, *detected_info = NULL; > >> > >> if (name) > >> info = spi_nor_match_name(nor, name); > >> /* Try to auto-detect if chip name wasn't specified or not found */ > >> - if (!info) > >> - info = spi_nor_read_id(nor); > >> + if (!info) { > >> + detected_info = spi_nor_read_id(nor); > >> + info = detected_info; > >> + } > >> if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info)) > >> return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT); > >> > >> @@ -2908,7 +2910,7 @@ static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_get_flash_info(struct spi_nor *nor, > >> * If caller has specified name of flash model that can normally be > >> * detected using JEDEC, let's verify it. > >> */ > >> - if (name && info->id_len) { > >> + if (name && !detected_info && info->id_len) { > >> const struct flash_info *jinfo; > >> > >> jinfo = spi_nor_read_id(nor); > > > > I think the flow can be a little bit better. How about: > > > > if (name) > > info = spi_nor_match_name(); > > > > if (!info) { > > info = spi_nor_read_id(); > > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info)) > > return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT); > > > > return info; > > } > > Here we miss the IS_ERR check in case info is retrieved with spi_nor_match_name(). > Do you expect spi_nor_match_name() to ever return an error? As it is now it doesn't. > I'm fine either way. In case you want me to follow your suggestion, give me a sign > and I'll make a dedicated patch to move the IS_ERR_OR_NULL check. Will add your > Suggested-by tag.
I think it should be safe to assume it won't ever return an error since all it does is iterate over an array that is always present. I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future either. So I think not having the IS_ERR check is fine.
-- Regards, Pratyush Yadav Texas Instruments Inc.
| |