lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/8] mtd: spi-nor: core: Use auto-detection only once
Date
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
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-21 13:52    [W:0.546 / U:0.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site