On Tue, 04 Apr 2017, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2017, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>
> > On 04/04/2017 02:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > If CONFIG_RC_CORE is not enabled then none of the RC code will be
> > > executed anyway, so we're placing the capability check inside the
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c b/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
> > > index 37217e2..06a312c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
> > > @@ -234,10 +234,10 @@ struct cec_adapter *cec_allocate_adapter(const struct cec_adap_ops *ops,
> > > return ERR_PTR(res);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
> > > if (!(caps & CEC_CAP_RC))
> > > return adap;
> > >
> > > -#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
> > > /* Prepare the RC input device */
> > > adap->rc = rc_allocate_device(RC_DRIVER_SCANCODE);
> > > if (!adap->rc) {
> > >
> >
> > Not true, there is an #else further down.
>
> I saw the #else. It's inert code that becomes function-less.
>
> > That said, this code is clearly a bit confusing.
> >
> > It would be better if at the beginning of the function we'd have this:
> >
> > #if !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
> > caps &= ~CEC_CAP_RC;
> > #endif
> >
> > and then drop the #else bit and (as you do in this patch) move the #if up.
> >
> > Can you make a new patch for this?
>
> Sure.
No wait, sorry! This patch is the correct fix.
'caps' is already indicating !CEC_CAP_RC, which is right.
What we're trying to do here is only consider looking at the
capabilities if the RC Core is enabled. If it is not enabled, the #if
still does the right thing and makes sure that the caps are updated.
Please take another look at the semantics.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
