On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:57:32 +0900, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> +/**
> >> + * Convert a GPIO number to its descriptor
> >> + */
> >> +static struct gpio_desc *gpio_to_desc(unsigned gpio)
> >> +{
> >> + if (WARN(!gpio_is_valid(gpio), "invalid GPIO %d\n", gpio))
> >> + return NULL;
> >
> > Don't we want to return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); here?
> >
> > Then you can use IS_ERR() on the pointers later.
> >
> > This is the approach taken by the external API for clk
> > and pins.
>
> Yes, that completely makes sense.
>
No, it does not. The ERR_PTR()/IS_ERR() is a horrible pattern for code
readability because it breaks the expectations that programmers have for
what is and is not a bad pointer. There are decades of history where the
test for a bad pointer is 'if (!ptr)'. Not only does ERR_PTR make make
that test not work, but the compiler won't tell you when you get it
wrong.
There are places where ERR_PTR makes sense. Particularly when
communicating with userspace where error codes have very specific
meanings, but I don't want it in the GPIO subsystem.
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
