On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 1:16 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 12:07:23PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Remove all remaining uses of find_chip_by_name() (and subsequently:
> > gpiochip_find()) from gpiolib.c and use the new
> > gpio_device_find_by_label() instead.
>
> ...
>
> > for (p = &table->table[0]; p->key; p++) {
> > - struct gpio_chip *gc;
> > + struct gpio_device *gdev __free(gpio_device_put) = NULL;
>
> > + gc = gpio_device_get_chip(gdev);
>
> What the heck is this, btw? You have gdev NULL here.
>
Gah! Thanks. I relied on tests succeeding and no KASAN warnings, I
need to go through this line-by-line again.
Bart
> > /* idx must always match exactly */
> > if (p->idx != idx)
> > @@ -4004,9 +3996,8 @@ static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
> > return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> > }
> >
> > - gc = find_chip_by_name(p->key);
> > -
> > - if (!gc) {
> > + gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label(p->key);
> > + if (!gdev) {
>
> ...
>
> > if (gc->ngpio <= p->chip_hwnum) {
> > dev_err(dev,
> > "requested GPIO %u (%u) is out of range [0..%u] for chip %s\n",
> > - idx, p->chip_hwnum, gc->ngpio - 1,
> > + idx, p->chip_hwnum, gdev->chip->ngpio - 1,
>
> In other patch you use wrapper to get gdev->chip, why not here?
>
> > gc->label);
>
> Is this gc is different to gdev->chip?
>
> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > }
>
> ...
>
> Sorry, but this patch seems to me as WIP. Please, revisit it, make sure all
> things are done consistently.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
