Hello,
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 04:09:52PM +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Roberta Dobrescu
> <roberta.dobrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The return value of gpiod_to_irq should be checked before giving
> > it to devm_request_threaded_irq in order to not pass an error
> > code in case it fails.
nothing really bad should happen because request_irq with a negative irq
parameter just returns an error I think. So it's not urgent, but still a
good idea to fix.
> > Signed-off-by: Roberta Dobrescu <roberta.dobrescu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Vlad Dogaru <vlad.dogaru@xxxxxxxxx>
It's good habit to point out the commit that introduced the problem. In
this case this would be:
Fixes: c78b91716340 ("iio: add driver for Freescale MMA9551L")
> > ---
> > gpiod_to_irq also appears in the following drivers:
> > * drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel.c
> > * drivers/iio/accel/kxcjk-1013.c
> > * drivers/iio/accel/mma9553.c
> > * drivers/iio/gyro/bmg160.c
> > * drivers/iio/imu/kmx61.c
> > * drivers/iio/proximity/sx9500.c,
> >
> > something like this:
> >
> > <code>
> > ret = gpiod_to_irq(gpio);
> >
> > dev_dbg(dev, "GPIO resource, no:%d irq:%d\n", desc_to_gpio(gpio), ret);
> >
> > return ret;
> > </code>
> >
> > The return value of the functions containing the above code is checked,
> > so the only problem would be that the debug message would contain a wrong
> > value for irq in case gpiod_to_irq fails. So it doesn't affects much.
Still worth fixing, isn't it? Also the error isn't handled, but ignored,
like:
if (client->irq <= 0)
client->irq = sx9500_gpio_probe(client, data);
if (client->irq > 0) {
ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(....
but if an irq is specified (be it by means of a "normal" irq or by
specifying a gpio in the device tree/acpi tables) I expect the driver to
fail probing instead of just behaving as if no irq would be available.
I don't know how this was tested, but I wonder further about
#define SX9500_GPIO_NAME "sx9500_gpio"
...
devm_gpiod_get_index(dev, SX9500_GPIO_NAME, 0, GPIOD_IN);
If I understand the code correctly that is supposed to look for
"sx9500_gpio-gpio" in the ACPI data. Is this really correct?
> > drivers/iio/accel/mma9551.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/mma9551.c b/drivers/iio/accel/mma9551.c
> > index 46c3835..b6f3041 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/accel/mma9551.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/mma9551.c
> > @@ -428,7 +428,11 @@ static int mma9551_gpio_probe(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > - data->irqs[i] = gpiod_to_irq(gpio);
> > + ret = gpiod_to_irq(gpio);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
I wonder if you should handle 0 as error, too. But even as is:
Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
