On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 10:35:44PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
> On 22/02/2021 14:58, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:12 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> >> + if (obj->buffer.length > sizeof(*cldb)) {
> >> + dev_err(&adev->dev, "The CLDB buffer is too large\n");
> >> + ret = -EINVAL;
> > ENOSPC? ENOMEM?
>
> I still think EINVAL actually, as in this case the problem isn't that
> space couldn't be allocated but that the buffer in the SSDB is larger
> than I expect it to be, which means the definition of it has changed /
> this device isn't actually supported.
OK!
...
> >> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sensor_config) && sensor_config->function_maps) {
> > Hmm...
> >
> > Would
> >
> > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sensor_config))
> > return 0;
> >
> > if (!_maps)
> > return 0;
> >
> > with respective comments working here?
>
> No, because the absence of either sensor_config or
> sensor_config->function_maps is not a failure mode. We only need to
> provide sensor_configs for some platforms, and function_maps for even
> fewer. So if that check is false, the rest of the function should still
> execute.
I see, thanks for elaboration.
...
> >> + if (ares->type != ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_GPIO ||
> >> + ares->data.gpio.connection_type != ACPI_RESOURCE_GPIO_TYPE_IO)
> >> + return 1; /* Deliberately positive so parsing continues */
> > I don't like to lose control over ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_GPIO, i.e.
> > spreading it over kernel code (yes, I know about one existing TS
> > case).
> > Consider to provide a helper in analogue to acpi_gpio_get_irq_resource().
>
> Sure, but I probably name it acpi_gpio_is_io_resource() - a function
> named "get" which returns a bool seems a bit funny to me.
But don't you need the resource itself?
You may extract and check resource at the same time as
acpi_gpio_get_irq_resource() does.
...
> >> + struct int3472_discrete_device *int3472 = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >> + if (int3472->gpios.dev_id)
> >> + gpiod_remove_lookup_table(&int3472->gpios);
> > gpiod_remove_lookup_table() is now NULL-aware.
> > But in any case I guess you don't need the above check.
>
> Sorry; forgot to call out that I didn't follow that suggestion;
> int3472->gpios is a _struct_ rather than a pointer, so &int3472->gpios
> won't be NULL, even if I haven't filled anything in to there yet because
> it failed before it got to that point. So, not sure that it quite works
> there.
I think if you initialize the ->list member you can remove without check.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
