[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130803185255.1b1932c4@armhf>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 18:52:55 +0200
From: Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@...e.fr>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ASoc: kirkwood: simplify probe error
On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 13:46:52 +0100
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:17:39AM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> > The function kirkwood_i2s_dev_remove() may be used when probe fails.
>
> Looking at this deeper, I'm not happy with this.
[snip]
> What this means is that if snd_soc_register_component() fails, we end
> up calling snd_soc_unregister_component(). This may be fine with the
> way snd_soc_unregister_component() is currently implemented, but you're
> making the assumption that it's fine to call snd_soc_unregister_component()
> for a device which hasn't been registered. Technically, this is a
> layering violation, which makes this change fragile if the behaviour
> of snd_soc_unregister_component() changes in the future.
>
> For the sake of two calls in the error path, I don't think the benefits
> of this patch outweigh the risk.
You are right, but if snd_soc_unregister_component() could be
officially used safely with no previous call to
snd_soc_register_component(), this would simplify error handling in
other drivers too...
--
Ken ar c'hentaƱ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! **
Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists