On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 00:24:58 +0530
Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 07:59:38PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > On 08/19/2018 07:43 PM, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 06:31:32PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 15:48:33 +0530
> > >> Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 05:06:05PM +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> > >>>> Fixes ef89f4b96a2 ("iio: adxl345: Add support for the ADXL375").
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This was found via static checker.
> > >>>> After looking into the code a bit, it's unlikely that there will be a NULL
> > >>>> dereference if the `id` object in that specific code path.
> > >>>> However, it's safe to add a NULL (paranoid) check just to make sure and
> > >>>> remove any uncertainties.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to know when would that case happen actually ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Because probe will only be called only when a match occurs either
> > >>> through DT or id matching. Isn't it ?
> > >>>
> > >> Yes. Alternative would have just not been to check it, but this is fine
> > >> so applied. I'm not going to rush this through stable though given
> > >> I don't think it can actually happen.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the confirmation.
> > >
> > > So, I have another doubt and it seems to be right time to ask.
> > >
> > > BME680 currently supports both ACPI matching and traditional ID
> > > matching. So, it there any priority list to which patch the driver
> > > would choose to match the device.
> > >
> > > ACPI > ID matching ? (In my case this happens)
> > >
> > > Because this matching tends to decide the `name` attribute of loaded
> > > driver.
> > >
> > > For ACPI: BME0680 (not sure maybe it was I2C0:BME0680)
> > > For ID: bme680
> >
> > Yeah, that's wrong. But pretty much all ACPI drivers have that issue.
> > Maybe we should just deprecate the name attribute.
>
> libiio is the most affected due to this issue as I can figure out.
> Particularly, the iio_device_get_name() api:
> https://analogdevicesinc.github.io/libiio/group__Context.html#gae5807303b638869679ece67270e72e77
>
Yeah, the name thing was one of those ones that got away from us a long
time ago and became ABI in far too many drivers. The 'intent' was
that it would just provide a convenient "what's this part?" sysfs
attribute, so should always return the part number rather than anything
to do with any of the bindings. Unfortunately it often doesn't.
We could add a new attribute called something like 'part_number'
as then it should be more obvious what the intent is an hopefully it'll
get used right.
Jonathan
