Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] mtd: spi-nor: core: Use auto-detection only once | Date | Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:50:35 +0000 |
| |
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.
Cheers, ta
| |