On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> @@ -87,6 +88,30 @@ static struct syscon *of_syscon_register(struct device_node *np)
>> if (ret)
>> reg_io_width = 4;
>>
>> + ret = of_hwspin_lock_get_id(np, 0);
>> + if (ret > 0) {
>> + syscon_config.hwlock_id = ret;
>> + syscon_config.hwlock_mode = HWLOCK_IRQSTATE;
>> + } else {
>> + switch (ret) {
>> + case -ENOENT:
>> + /* Ignore missing hwlock, it's optional. */
>> + break;
>> + case 0:
>> + /* In case of the HWSPINLOCK is not enabled. */
>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HWSPINLOCK))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + /* fall-through */
>> + default:
>> + pr_err("Failed to retrieve valid hwlock: %d\n", ret);
>> + /* fall-through */
>> + case -EPROBE_DEFER:
>> + goto err_regmap;
>> + }
The 'case 0' seems odd here, are we sure that this is always a failure?
>From the of_hwspin_lock_get_id() definition it looks like zero might
be valid, and the !CONFIG_HWSPINLOCK implementation appears
to be written so that we should consider '0' valid but unused and
silently continue with that. If that is generally not the intended
use, it should probably return -EINVAL or something like that.
Arnd
--
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
