[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201130175319.GS4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:53:19 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...ica.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, bgolaszewski@...libre.com,
wsa@...nel.org, yong.zhi@...el.com, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
bingbu.cao@...el.com, tian.shu.qiu@...el.com, mchehab@...nel.org,
robert.moore@...el.com, erik.kaneda@...el.com, pmladek@...e.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
linux@...musvillemoes.dk, kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com,
jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org,
laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com, kitakar@...il.com,
heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] property: Add support for calling
fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id() for fwnode->secondary
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:28:57PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:29:00PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:13PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
...
> > > + if (!best_ep && fwnode && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode->secondary))
> > > + return fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id(fwnode->secondary, port,
> > > + endpoint, flags);
> >
> > > return best_ep;
> >
> > Can we, please, do
> >
> > if (best_ep)
> > return best_ep;
> >
> > if (fwnode && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode->secondary))
> > return fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id(fwnode->secondary, port,
> > endpoint, flags);
> >
> > return NULL;
> >
> > ?
> >
> > This 'if (fwnode && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode->secondary))' becomes kinda
> > idiomatic to the cases when we need to proceed primary followed by the
> > secondary in cases where it's not already done.
>
> We could also move the !fwnode check to the beginning of the function.
It's already there (1). What did I miss?
1) via fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint() -> fwnode_call_ptr_op()
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists