On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 12:02 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > 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"? > > Well, for one thing, the check should be done in the _init function, > not the _probe. I asked Dongsheng to put it in probe() during internal review because at the time he was printing an error, and I didn't want the error to be printed if the device wasn't present. Again, there's another non-bugfix patch pending that moves all the rest into probe() where it belongs. > Secondly, it should be documented as such, e.g. "/* > Check to see that we have platform code that initializes diu_ops. If > not, then abort. */". OK. > Third, you should probably add a boolean field > to platform_diu_data_ops that gets set to True if/when the platform > code initializes the rest of the structure. Why do you want to complicate a simple bugfix with a requirement to modify all platforms that use the driver, introducing a possible regression if one is missed? -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
