[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1F0z5aP3MsqnMan@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 19:18:23 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] spi: pxa2xx: Remove no more needed PCI ID table
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 04:50:38PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 06:06:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 12:42:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > You should probably also restructure the code interpreting the device
> > > IDs so that it's very clear that unknown values are handled well, this
> > > would split things between multiple subsystems and right now the code is
> > > a bit fragile.
>
> > I'm not sure how better to do this. Any example?
>
> For example a check that the ID is one we know about. IIRC that bit of
> context looked like a tree of if statements with no particular
> validation.
But isn't it guaranteed to be handled by device core, i.e. we won't get driver
even enumerated if ID is unknown to us.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists