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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1707373 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 3/3] [media] cx231xx: only unregister successfully registered i2c adapters

Started byMauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
First post2017-08-09 16:30 +0200
Last post2017-08-09 17:10 +0200
Articles 2 — 1 participant

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 3/3] [media] cx231xx: only unregister successfully  registered i2c adapters Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com> - 2017-08-09 16:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 3/3] [media] cx231xx: only unregister successfully  registered i2c adapters Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com> - 2017-08-09 17:10 +0200

#1707373 — Re: [PATCH 3/3] [media] cx231xx: only unregister successfully registered i2c adapters

FromMauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
Date2017-08-09 16:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] [media] cx231xx: only unregister successfully registered i2c adapters
Message-ID<ucA9I-7V-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
Em Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:38:52 +0200
Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> escreveu:

> This prevents potentially scary debug messages from the i2c core.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> ---
>  drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-core.c | 3 +++
>  drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-i2c.c  | 3 ++-
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-core.c b/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-core.c
> index 46646ecd2dbc..f372ad3917a8 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-core.c
> @@ -1311,6 +1311,7 @@ int cx231xx_dev_init(struct cx231xx *dev)
>  	dev->i2c_bus[0].i2c_period = I2C_SPEED_100K;	/* 100 KHz */
>  	dev->i2c_bus[0].i2c_nostop = 0;
>  	dev->i2c_bus[0].i2c_reserve = 0;
> +	dev->i2c_bus[0].i2c_rc = -ENODEV;
>  
>  	/* External Master 2 Bus */
>  	dev->i2c_bus[1].nr = 1;
> @@ -1318,6 +1319,7 @@ int cx231xx_dev_init(struct cx231xx *dev)
>  	dev->i2c_bus[1].i2c_period = I2C_SPEED_100K;	/* 100 KHz */
>  	dev->i2c_bus[1].i2c_nostop = 0;
>  	dev->i2c_bus[1].i2c_reserve = 0;
> +	dev->i2c_bus[1].i2c_rc = -ENODEV;
>  
>  	/* Internal Master 3 Bus */
>  	dev->i2c_bus[2].nr = 2;
> @@ -1325,6 +1327,7 @@ int cx231xx_dev_init(struct cx231xx *dev)
>  	dev->i2c_bus[2].i2c_period = I2C_SPEED_100K;	/* 100kHz */
>  	dev->i2c_bus[2].i2c_nostop = 0;
>  	dev->i2c_bus[2].i2c_reserve = 0;
> +	dev->i2c_bus[2].i2c_rc = -ENODEV;
>  
>  	/* register I2C buses */
>  	errCode = cx231xx_i2c_register(&dev->i2c_bus[0]);
> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-i2c.c b/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-i2c.c
> index 3e49517cb5e0..8ce6b815d16d 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-i2c.c
> @@ -553,7 +553,8 @@ int cx231xx_i2c_register(struct cx231xx_i2c *bus)
>   */
>  void cx231xx_i2c_unregister(struct cx231xx_i2c *bus)
>  {
> -	i2c_del_adapter(&bus->i2c_adap);
> +	if (!bus->i2c_rc)
> +		i2c_del_adapter(&bus->i2c_adap);

That doesn't sound right. what happens if i2c_rc is 1 or 2?

IMHO, the right would would be, instead:

	if (bus->i2c_rc >= 0)
		i2c_del_adapter(&bus->i2c_adap);

Regards

Thanks,
Mauro

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1707400

FromMauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
Date2017-08-09 17:10 +0200
Message-ID<ucAMq-D4-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1707373
Em Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:43:03 +0200
Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> escreveu:

> On 2017-08-09 16:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:38:52 +0200
> > Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> escreveu:
> >   
> >> This prevents potentially scary debug messages from the i2c core.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-core.c | 3 +++
> >>  drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-i2c.c  | 3 ++-
> >>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-core.c b/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-core.c
> >> index 46646ecd2dbc..f372ad3917a8 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-core.c
> >> @@ -1311,6 +1311,7 @@ int cx231xx_dev_init(struct cx231xx *dev)
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[0].i2c_period = I2C_SPEED_100K;	/* 100 KHz */
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[0].i2c_nostop = 0;
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[0].i2c_reserve = 0;
> >> +	dev->i2c_bus[0].i2c_rc = -ENODEV;
> >>  
> >>  	/* External Master 2 Bus */
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[1].nr = 1;
> >> @@ -1318,6 +1319,7 @@ int cx231xx_dev_init(struct cx231xx *dev)
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[1].i2c_period = I2C_SPEED_100K;	/* 100 KHz */
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[1].i2c_nostop = 0;
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[1].i2c_reserve = 0;
> >> +	dev->i2c_bus[1].i2c_rc = -ENODEV;
> >>  
> >>  	/* Internal Master 3 Bus */
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[2].nr = 2;
> >> @@ -1325,6 +1327,7 @@ int cx231xx_dev_init(struct cx231xx *dev)
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[2].i2c_period = I2C_SPEED_100K;	/* 100kHz */
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[2].i2c_nostop = 0;
> >>  	dev->i2c_bus[2].i2c_reserve = 0;
> >> +	dev->i2c_bus[2].i2c_rc = -ENODEV;
> >>  
> >>  	/* register I2C buses */
> >>  	errCode = cx231xx_i2c_register(&dev->i2c_bus[0]);
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-i2c.c b/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-i2c.c
> >> index 3e49517cb5e0..8ce6b815d16d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-i2c.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-i2c.c
> >> @@ -553,7 +553,8 @@ int cx231xx_i2c_register(struct cx231xx_i2c *bus)
> >>   */
> >>  void cx231xx_i2c_unregister(struct cx231xx_i2c *bus)
> >>  {
> >> -	i2c_del_adapter(&bus->i2c_adap);
> >> +	if (!bus->i2c_rc)
> >> +		i2c_del_adapter(&bus->i2c_adap);  
> > 
> > That doesn't sound right. what happens if i2c_rc is 1 or 2?
> > 
> > IMHO, the right would would be, instead:
> > 
> > 	if (bus->i2c_rc >= 0)
> > 		i2c_del_adapter(&bus->i2c_adap);  
> 
> In theory, yes. But in practice i2c_add_adapter never returns >0, and is
> also documented so.

Good point. Just applied the patch.
> 
> Let me know if you still want an update. In that case I'll also fix the
> precedent present in the context of patch 1/3, i.e.
> 
> 	if (0 != bus->i2c_rc)
> 		...
> 
> Cheers,
> peda



Thanks,
Mauro

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web