On 2018-02-01 07:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:27 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:17 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On 1/31/2018 4:29 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > As well as its sibling of_device_get_match_data() has no such
> > checks,
> > no need to do it in acpi_get_match_data().
> >
> > First of all, we are not supposed to call fwnode API like this
> > without
> > driver attached.
> >
> > Second, if pure OF driver calls this function, it's weird to have
> > ACPI
> > companion without ACPI ID in this case.
>
> We talked about this during review.
>
> of_match_device() does all the checking for the OF part. ACPI
> doesn't have
> any checks.
Yeah, this patch is just plain incorrect AFAICS.
I don't see how check dev->driver is implemented on OF side then
of_device_get_match_data() which is called by
of_fwnode_device_get_match_data() has dereferenced dev->driver w/o any
check.
I can't agree that the patch is plain incorrect, if I didn't miss
anything.
Sorry, i should have been more specific. I was talkimg about match_data
not driver.
I agree that driver check is redundant.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
