Re: [PATCH -next v2 1/2] device property: Return -ENXIO if there is no suitable FW interface

[Guenter Roeck]

On 08/26/2015 04:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 01:20:44 PM Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Return -ENXIO if device property array access functions don't find
> > a suitable firmware interface.
> >
> > This lets drivers decide if they should use available platform data
> > instead.
> >
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2: Added patch
> >
> >   drivers/base/property.c | 7 +++++++
> >   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/property.c b/drivers/base/property.c
> > index 287704d680bf..9600b824d138 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/property.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/property.c
> > @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int pset_prop_read_array(struct property_set *pset, const char *name,
> >   	struct property_entry *prop;
> >   	unsigned int item_size;
> >
> > +	if (!pset)
> > +		return -ENXIO;
> > +
>
> This isn't exactly straightforward, because it relies on the fact that
> pset_prop_read_array() is the last thing tried by FWNODE_PROP_READ_ARRAY()
> and fwnode_property_read_string_array().  A comment about that might be
> helpful.
I see two options: Add a comment above, or change the calling code to

	...
	else if (is_pset(fwnode))
		return pset_prop_read_array(to_pset(fwnode), propname,
                         	            DEV_PROP_STRING, val, nval);
	return -ENXIO;

which would make it obvious and avoid side effects if the code is changed
later on. Would you be ok with this ?

Thanks,
Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/