Hi Jacek, On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:14:13PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > On 06/14/2017 11:47 AM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > None of the flash operations are not mandatory and therefore there should > > be no need for the flash ops structure either. Accept NULL. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-flash-led-class.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-flash-led-class.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-flash-led-class.c > > index 6d69119..fdb79da 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-flash-led-class.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-flash-led-class.c > > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ > > #include <media/v4l2-flash-led-class.h> > > > > #define has_flash_op(v4l2_flash, op) \ > > - (v4l2_flash && v4l2_flash->ops->op) > > + (v4l2_flash && v4l2_flash->ops && v4l2_flash->ops->op) > > This change doesn't seem to be related to the patch subject. Yes, it is: if there's a chance that ops is NULL, then you have to test here you actually have the ops struct around. The test is no longer in v4l2_flash_init(). > > > #define call_flash_op(v4l2_flash, op, arg) \ > > (has_flash_op(v4l2_flash, op) ? \ > > @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ struct v4l2_flash *v4l2_flash_init( > > struct v4l2_subdev *sd; > > int ret; > > > > - if (!fled_cdev || !ops || !config) > > + if (!fled_cdev || !config) > > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > > led_cdev = &fled_cdev->led_cdev; > > -- Regards, Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
