[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a385e266-b24e-7ffb-c083-891edd4b0b14@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 18:40:37 +0800
From: Potin Lai <potin.lai.pt@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Patrick Williams <patrick@...cx.xyz>,
Potin Lai <potin.lai@...ntatw.com>,
linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] iio: humidity: hdc100x: add manufacturer and
device ID cehck
On 7/27/22 18:00, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 8:46 AM Potin Lai <potin.lai.pt@...il.com> wrote:
>> Add manufacturer and device ID checking during probe, and skip the
>> checking if chip model not supported.
>>
>> Supported:
>> - HDC1000
>> - HDC1010
>> - HDC1050
>> - HDC1080
>>
>> Not supported:
>> - HDC1008
> Thanks for an update, my comments below.
>
> ...
>
>> + const struct of_device_id *match;
> Don't you have a compiler warning? Always compile your code with `make W=1`
>
> ...
You are correct, I will remove this unused variable.
>> + data = device_get_match_data(&client->dev);
>> + if (data) {
> This check is redundant. Too much protective programming. Just oblige
> that matched ID has to always have an associated data.
Is it guaranteed that device_get_match_data will not return NULL? I find some examples in other drivers, all of them have a check on returned data.
Will it be more appropriate if I move device_get_match_data to probe function, and return EINVAL when we get a NULL pointer from device_get_match_data?
>> + if (!data->support_mfr_check)
>> + return true;
>> + }
> ...
>
>> - .probe = hdc100x_probe,
>> + .probe_new = hdc100x_probe,
> Make this a separate patch before the presented one.
>
got it, will move this into a separate patch in next version.
thanks,
Potin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists