[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZcImWuSiBgSO0yO6@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:30:18 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/23] gpio: reduce the functionality of
validate_desc()
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 08:22:23PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:47 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 10:34:12AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
..
> > > void gpiod_free(struct gpio_desc *desc)
> > > {
> > > - /*
> > > - * We must not use VALIDATE_DESC_VOID() as the underlying gdev->chip
> > > - * may already be NULL but we still want to put the references.
> > > - */
> > > - if (!desc)
> > > - return;
> > > + VALIDATE_DESC_VOID(desc);
> >
> > IIRC we (used to) have two cases like this (you added one in some code like
> > last year).
> >
>
> None of the consumer-facing functions does it anymore. Not sure about
> this, maybe it was removed earlier.
Okay, the only place that might be considered is gpiod_to_gpio_device().
But that API seems new, I don't know if VALIDATE_DESC_VOID() is okay to use there,
maybe it should be commented if not. Also there is a typo in the kernel doc —
'the users already holds' --> 'the user already holds'.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists