[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150331175347.GL17728@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:53:47 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, acourbot@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: at803x: simplify using devm_gpiod_get_optional
and its 4th argument
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:57:54PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 20:25:02 +0100
>
> > @@ -197,15 +197,12 @@ static int at803x_probe(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > if (!priv)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - priv->gpiod_reset = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "reset");
> > - if (IS_ERR(priv->gpiod_reset))
> > - priv->gpiod_reset = NULL;
> > - else
> > - gpiod_direction_output(priv->gpiod_reset, 1);
> > + priv->gpiod_reset = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "reset",
> > + GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> >
> > phydev->priv = priv;
> >
> > - return 0;
> > + return IS_ERR(priv->gpiod_reset);
> > }
> >
> > static int at803x_config_init(struct phy_device *phydev)
>
> This isn't right.
>
> The current code is necessary, don't change it.
>
> Your "simplification" adds three new bugs:
>
> 1) It potentially leaves an error pointer in priv->gpiod_reset
> and I explicitly tell people to NEVER do this as it tests as
> non-NULL by cleanup code and therefore might be mistakenly
> used.
If priv->gpiod_reset is an error value it makes the probe routine return
this error (after point 2 is addressed), which should end the lifetime
of the structure containing the value.
> 2) It returns the wrong error. IS_ERR() is either true or
> false, but if you wanted to do this right you would
> return PTR_ERR() if IS_ERR() were true or zero.
Ah right, I should use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO.
> 3) Clearly this code intended to continue trying and succeed
> the probe even if getting "reset" failed, your changes
> no longer do this.
It uses the _optional variant of devm_gpiod_get now, which returns NULL if
devm_gpiod_get would return -ENOENT. For all other errors returned by
devm_gpiod_get the code that is currently in place is wrong to ignore
them.
> I really hate changes like this, don't try to be too cute unless
> you fully understand the full repurcussions and the reasons why
> someone did things one way or another.
I think I did understand the code, so I will resend with
PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO assuming it was you who didn't understood my change
regarding the other two issues you pointed out.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists