[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140307171932.GU607@lukather>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 18:19:32 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kevin.z.m.zh@...il.com, sunny@...winnertech.com,
shuge@...winnertech.com, zhuzhenhua@...winnertech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: mv64xxx: Fix compilation breakage
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:08:36PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 03:59:30PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > @@ -900,7 +902,8 @@ mv64xxx_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pd)
> > exit_free_irq:
> > free_irq(drv_data->irq, drv_data);
> > exit_reset:
> > - if (pd->dev.of_node && !IS_ERR(drv_data->rstc))
> > + if (pd->dev.of_node && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER) &&
> > + !IS_ERR(drv_data->rstc))
> > reset_control_assert(drv_data->rstc);
>
> Another question is... why do we need to check pd->dev.of_node here?
> If CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER is set, we always try to get the reset
> controller node, so drv_data->rstc is either going to be a valid
> pointer, or it's going to be an error pointer - neither
> reset_control_get() nor devm_reset_control_get return NULL.
Hmmm, right. I'll fix this in a later version.
Wolfram, do you want me to respin the patch making use of
reset_get_optional introduced by Philip in its other mail?
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists