[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150731192458.457c6c9d@bbrezillon>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:24:58 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] mtd: ofpart: move ofpart partitions to a
dedicated dt node
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:52:01 +0200
Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> (*pparts)[i].offset = of_read_number(reg, a_cells);
> >> (*pparts)[i].size = of_read_number(reg + a_cells, s_cells);
> >>
> >> @@ -92,15 +116,15 @@ static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info *master,
> >> i++;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (!i) {
> >> - of_node_put(pp);
> >> - pr_err("No valid partition found on %s\n", node->full_name);
> >> - kfree(*pparts);
> >> - *pparts = NULL;
> >> - return -EINVAL;
> >> - }
> >> -
> >
> > Are you sure you can safely remove this check?
>
> Yes. It was incomplete check to reject some partitioning schemes
> considered invalid.
>
> Now there is stricter checking above so this can be removed.
Indeed, I was worried about resources deallocation, but this is handle
by the caller, and if nr_parts is zero the master MTD device will
be exposed.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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