[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <acf4838d-3c70-20c1-5fce-ee36765b06c4@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:04:59 +0100
From: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
rafael@...nel.org, laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] device property: Check fwnode->secondary in
fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint()
On 23/07/2021 13:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 09:19:28PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:
>> Sensor drivers often check for an endpoint to make sure that they're
>> connected to a consuming device like a CIO2 during .probe(). Some of
>> those endpoints might be in the form of software_nodes assigned as
>> a secondary to the device's fwnode_handle. Account for this possibility
>> in fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint() to avoid having to do it in the
>> sensor drivers themselves.
> ...
>
>> + ep = fwnode_call_ptr_op(parent, graph_get_next_endpoint, prev);
>> +
>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ep) && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent) &&
>> + !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent->secondary))
> Nit-pick, I would put it like:
>
> if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent->secondary) && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent) &&
> IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ep))
>
> or
>
> if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ep) &&
> !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent->secondary) && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(parent))
>
> for the sake of logical split.
OK; I'll do the second one, feel like it's better to have ep as the
first check.
>
>> + ep = fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint(parent->secondary, NULL);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists