On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:52:01 +0200
Michal Suchanek <hramrach@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> (*pparts)[i].offset = of_read_number(reg, a_cells);
> >> (*pparts)[i].size = of_read_number(reg + a_cells, s_cells);
> >>
> >> @@ -92,15 +116,15 @@ static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info *master,
> >> i++;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (!i) {
> >> - of_node_put(pp);
> >> - pr_err("No valid partition found on %s\n", node->full_name);
> >> - kfree(*pparts);
> >> - *pparts = NULL;
> >> - return -EINVAL;
> >> - }
> >> -
> >
> > Are you sure you can safely remove this check?
>
> Yes. It was incomplete check to reject some partitioning schemes
> considered invalid.
>
> Now there is stricter checking above so this can be removed.
Indeed, I was worried about resources deallocation, but this is handle
by the caller, and if nr_parts is zero the master MTD device will
be exposed.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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
