[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140328074806.GB2708@katana>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:48:06 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
zhuzhenhua@...winnertech.com,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
kevin.z.m.zh@...il.com, sunny@...winnertech.com,
shuge@...winnertech.com, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: mv64xxx: Fix compilation breakage
> > I think there is something wrong with an interface that makes you use
> > IS_ERR_OR_NULL(). If you are calling reset_control_get_optional(), that'
> > should not return an error when there is no reset controller listed
> > in the device tree. We should still have a way to propagate -EPROBE_DEFER,
> > or bail out if there is a reset controller but there is something wrong
> > with it, but otherwise I'd suggest just leaving NULL as a valid pointer
> > in drv_data->rstc and making sure that the reset controller functions
> > can just deal with a NULL argument, so you never have to check it again.
>
> Actually, it's not the reset framework but the driver itself that
> needs this. The framework will always return an error pointer here,
> but we won't ever call reset_control_get_optional if we are not probed
> with DT, and in that case, we will have NULL is data->rstc, hence why
> we need to use IS_ERR_OR_NULL.
>
> We should probably fix the reset functions, but maybe that can come
> later so that we have marvell's defconfig fixed?
Yes, let's fix that incrementally.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists