On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 01:32:55PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:33:00PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The fdt_get_max_phandle() function has some shortcomings. On one hand it > > returns a uint32_t phandle value via a signed return value. > > Uh.. no it doesn't.. Ugh... I got that backwards. It's actually returning a signed error code via an unsigned return value. > > > This means a > > caller has to explicitly cast the return value to a uint32_t and perform > > explicit checks against the error code (uint32_t)-1. In addition, the -1 > > is the only error code that can be returned, so a caller cannot tell the > > difference between the various failures. > > > > Fix this by adding a new fdt_find_max_phandle() function that returns an > > error code on failure and 0 on success, just like other APIs, and stores > > the maximum phandle value in an output argument on success. > > > > This also refactors fdt_get_max_phandle() to use the new function. Add a > > note pointing out that the new fdt_find_max_phandle() function should be > > preferred over fdt_get_max_phandle(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I've applied the series, but adjusted the commit message above for > accuracy. I'm also planning on some followup cleanups which may > change things up a bit more. Thanks. Please do add me on Cc if you want me to review any followup patches to this. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
