On 12/2/20 11:49 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
On Wednesday 02 Dec 2020 at 11:14:02 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote:
Hi Ionela,
On 12/2/20 10:24 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
Hi Lukasz,
On Wednesday 18 Nov 2020 at 12:03:56 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote:
[snip]
+ struct device_node *np = NULL;
[snip]
+
+ if (dev->of_node)
+ np = of_node_get(dev->of_node);
+
Should np be checked before use? I'm not sure if it's better to do the
assign first and then the check on np before use. It depends on the
consequences of passing a NULL node pointer later on.
The np is actually dev->of_node (or left NULL, as set at the begging).
The only meaning of the line above is to increment the counter and then
decrement if CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC was used.
The devfreq_cooling_register() has np = NULL and the registration can
handle it, so we should be OK here as well.
Yes, I just wanted to make sure later registration can handle np = NULL,
or whether we need to bail out.
In this case, you can drop both ifs - for (dev->of_node) before get and
for np before put below, as of_node_get/of_node_put can handle NULL
pointers themselves.
Right. I agree, I will resend this patch with that small change.
Thank you for having a look at it.
Lukasz
Thanks,
Ionela.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
