linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:46:26 +0200
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:	qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linuxarm@...wei.com, haifeng.wei@...wei.com,
	charles.chenxin@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@...wei.com> wrote:

>>>>> -       node = dev->of_node;
>>>>> -       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node)
>>>>> +       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node))
>>>>>                 return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>>>
>>>> So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check?
>>>>
>>> Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was
>>> supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check.
>>
>> Yes, but like I said below device_get_child_node_count() will take
>> care of that, will it?
> Right, device_get_child_node_count() will take of it, this should be removed.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -       nports = of_get_child_count(node);
>>>>> +       nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev);
>>>>>         if (nports == 0)
>>>>>                 return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>>>
>>>> ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child.
>>> This one fail? yes, it will return to failure.
>>> I am not very clear here.
>>
>> See above.
> Here, device_get_child_node_count will return ZERO if there is not any child.
> So, I think this will work ok, will it?

I didn't check deeply, but I assume so.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko