On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 11:54 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 11:12 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Dongsheng Wang > > > <dongsheng.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > @@ -1697,6 +1700,9 @@ static int fsl_diu_probe(struct platform_device > > > > *pdev) > > > > unsigned int i; > > > > int ret; > > > > > > > > + if (!diu_ops.set_pixel_clock) > > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > > + > > > > data = dmam_alloc_coherent(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct > > > > fsl_diu_data), > > > > &dma_addr, GFP_DMA | __GFP_ZERO); > > > > if (!data) > > > > > > This doesn't make any sense. If set_pixel_clock() is not defined, > > > then the whole driver aborts the probe. > > > > That's what this patch is trying to accomplish. Currently it crashes > > instead. > > > > > When could that ever happen? > > > If the platform code does not exist, then don't let the driver be > > > probed. > > > > How do you propose to accomplish that other than with such a check? > > Well, if you're concern is that there's no platform code, then there > should be a check that says, "see if there's any platform code", not > "let's check this obscure function and abort without explanation if > it's not initialized." Do you have a *specific* better way to "see if there's any platform code"? > > Alternatively, why can't you just do this, in update_lcdc(): > > > Do nothing? -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
