On 21/12/2020 10:21, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Daniel, Andy, > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 11:48:51PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote: >> On 19/12/2020 18:52, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 2:25 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 18/12/2020 21:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:43:37PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>>>> + sensor->ep_properties[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32(sensor->prop_names.bus_type, 4); >>>>> Does 4 has any meaning that can be described by #define ? >>>> It's V4L2_FWNODE_BUS_TYPE_CSI2_DPHY: >>>> >>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c#L36 >>>> >>>> That enum's not in an accessible header, but I can define it in this >>>> module's header >>> Maybe you can do a preparatory patch to make it visible to v4l2 >>> drivers? (Like moving to one of v4l2 headers) >> Sure ok, guess media/v4l2-fwnode.h makes the most sense. > Yes, please. Done for the next version > >>> ... >>> >>>>>> + if (bridge->n_sensors >= CIO2_NUM_PORTS) { >>>>>> + dev_warn(&cio2->dev, "Exceeded available CIO2 ports\n"); >>>>>> + /* overflow i so outer loop ceases */ >>>>>> + i = ARRAY_SIZE(cio2_supported_sensors); >>>>>> + break; >>>>> Why not to create a new label below and assign ret here with probably comment >>>>> why it's not an error? >>>> Sure, I can do that, but since it wouldn't need any cleanup I could also >>>> just return 0 here as Laurent suggest (but with a comment explaining why >>>> that's ok as you say) - do you have a preference? >>> While it's a good suggestion it will bring a bit of inconsistency into >>> approach. Everywhere else in the function you are using the goto >>> approach. >>> So yes, I have a preference. >> No problem > Laurent also commented on the return code. > > I might just handle this as an error. The earlier ports are fine, but > there's also a problem with the data here. It'd be easier to spot that this > way, and we can change this in the future if need be. You mean just raise an error with dev_err()? Or fail the probe and unwind the 4 sensors that were already connected successfully? I'm fine with that if so - we have no in scope devices where that will be a problem at the moment.
