Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1314279 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] drm/dsi: check for CONFIG_OF when defining of_mipi_dsi_device_add

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] drm/dsi: check for CONFIG_OF when defining  of_mipi_dsi_device_add Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com> - 2016-01-21 16:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] drm/dsi: check for CONFIG_OF when defining  of_mipi_dsi_device_add Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org> - 2016-01-26 16:00 +0100

#1314279 — Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] drm/dsi: check for CONFIG_OF when defining of_mipi_dsi_device_add

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 06:11:35PM +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:
> of_mipi_dsi_device_add is used only when CONFIG_OF is enabled. It
> currently works if OF support is disabled, but this will change
> when we add more functionality to it.
> 
> Define the original func if CONFIG_OF is enabled. Define a dummy func
> otherwise.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c
> index 2d5ca8ee..bced235 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c
> @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ static int mipi_dsi_device_add(struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi)
>  	return device_add(&dsi->dev);
>  }
>  
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)
>  static struct mipi_dsi_device *
>  of_mipi_dsi_device_add(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, struct device_node *node)
>  {
> @@ -170,6 +171,13 @@ of_mipi_dsi_device_add(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, struct device_node *node)
>  
>  	return dsi;
>  }
> +#else
> +static struct mipi_dsi_device *
> +of_mipi_dsi_device_add(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, struct device_node *node)
> +{
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +#endif

The OF implementation of this function never returns NULL, so perhaps
this should return an ERR_PTR()-encoded error code instead? This isn't
really important because we never check the return value in the one
call-site that we have, which I guess could be an argument for removing
the return value altogether...

Thierry

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1318016

On 1/21/2016 9:01 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 06:11:35PM +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:
>> of_mipi_dsi_device_add is used only when CONFIG_OF is enabled. It
>> currently works if OF support is disabled, but this will change
>> when we add more functionality to it.
>>
>> Define the original func if CONFIG_OF is enabled. Define a dummy func
>> otherwise.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c | 8 ++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c
>> index 2d5ca8ee..bced235 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c
>> @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ static int mipi_dsi_device_add(struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi)
>>   	return device_add(&dsi->dev);
>>   }
>>
>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)
>>   static struct mipi_dsi_device *
>>   of_mipi_dsi_device_add(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, struct device_node *node)
>>   {
>> @@ -170,6 +171,13 @@ of_mipi_dsi_device_add(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, struct device_node *node)
>>
>>   	return dsi;
>>   }
>> +#else
>> +static struct mipi_dsi_device *
>> +of_mipi_dsi_device_add(struct mipi_dsi_host *host, struct device_node *node)
>> +{
>> +	return NULL;
>> +}
>> +#endif
>
> The OF implementation of this function never returns NULL, so perhaps
> this should return an ERR_PTR()-encoded error code instead? This isn't
> really important because we never check the return value in the one
> call-site that we have, which I guess could be an argument for removing
> the return value altogether...

You're right. I'll replace this with ERR_PTR(-ENODEV). Maybe we could
keep the return value in case we use it in the future.

Thanks,
Archit

>
> Thierry
>

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web