On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 11:52:26AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 07:17:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:10:15PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
...
> > > +static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find_by_fwnode(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > > + struct device *consumer,
> > > + const char *con_id,
> > > + unsigned int idx,
> > > + enum gpiod_flags *flags,
> > > + unsigned long *lookupflags)
> > > {
> >
> > > + struct gpio_desc *desc = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> >
> > No need, just return directly.
> >
> > > + dev_dbg(consumer, "GPIO lookup for consumer %s in node '%s'\n",
> > > + con_id, fwnode_get_name(fwnode));
> >
> > %pfwP ?
>
> OK. Although, I think I like %pfw (without 'P') better as it gives
> results like:
>
> /soc/i2c@11007000/edp-bridge@8
>
> or
>
> \_SB.PCI0.I2C1.D010
>
> which should help identifying the exact node.
I agree.
> > > + /* Using device tree? */
> > > if (is_of_node(fwnode)) {
> > > + dev_dbg(consumer, "using device tree for GPIO lookup\n");
> > > + desc = of_find_gpio(to_of_node(fwnode),
> > > + con_id, idx, lookupflags);
> > > } else if (is_acpi_node(fwnode)) {
> >
> > With direct return, no need for 'else' here.
>
> When we have several branches of equal weight I prefer not to have
> early/inline returns, but I can add:
>
> } else {
> desc = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> }
>
> at the end, what do you think?
No strong opinion here.
> > > + dev_dbg(consumer, "using ACPI for GPIO lookup\n");
> > > + desc = acpi_find_gpio(fwnode, con_id, idx, flags, lookupflags);
> > > }
> > >
> > > + return desc;
> > > +}
...
> > > + struct gpio_desc *desc = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> >
> > We can get rid of the assignment, see below.
Still below another thought which affects this.
> > > + if (fwnode)
> >
> > Do we need this check?
>
> Yes, I would prefer to have it as it clearly informs the reader that we
> are only doing lookup by node if we actually have a node.
>
> gpiod_find_and_request() expects that it gets a valid node and in the
> followup change it will be dereferencing fwnode without checking for
> NULL-ness.
But most of the code will check for the NULL anyway. The exceptions are
dev_dbg() and accessing to the secondary fwnode.
> > Debug message above (when %pfw is used) would be even useful when
> > fwnode == NULL.
> > > + desc = gpiod_find_by_fwnode(fwnode, consumer, con_id, idx,
> > > + &flags, &lookupflags);
Looking into drivers/base/property.c makes me realize that you might need to
test for error pointer as well.
Perhaps something like
if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode))
return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
in the gpiod_find_by_fwnode() needs to be added. Can you check this?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
