On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 14/07/17 11:36, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> @@ -201,8 +202,9 @@ static int cx18_g_fmt_sliced_vbi_cap(struct file *file, void *fh,
>> * digitizer/slicer. Note, cx18_av_vbi() wipes the passed in
>> * fmt->fmt.sliced under valid calling conditions
>> */
>> - if (v4l2_subdev_call(cx->sd_av, vbi, g_sliced_fmt, &fmt->fmt.sliced))
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + ret = v4l2_subdev_call(cx->sd_av, vbi, g_sliced_fmt, &fmt->fmt.sliced);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>
> Please keep the -EINVAL here. I can't be 100% certain that returning 'ret' wouldn't
> break something.
I think Dan was recommending the opposite here, if I understood you
both correctly:
he said we should propagate the error code unless we know it's wrong, while you
want to keep the current behavior to avoid introducing changes ;-)
I guess in either case, looking at the callers more carefully would be
a good idea.
>> - return 0;
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> int atomisp_flash_enable(struct atomisp_sub_device *asd, int num_frames)
>>
>
> This is all very hackish, though. I'm not terribly keen on this patch. It's not
> clear to me *why* these warnings appear in your setup.
it's possible that this only happened with 'ccache', which first preprocesses
the source and the passes it with v4l2_subdev_call expanded into the
compiler. This means the line looks like
if ((!(cx->sd_av) ? -ENODEV :
(((cx->sd_av)->ops->vbi && (cx->sd_av)->ops->vbi->g_sliced_fmt) ?
(cx->sd_av)->ops->vbi->g_sliced_fmt(cx->sd_av)),
&fmt->fmt.sliced) :
-ENOIOCTLCMD))
The compiler now complains about the sub-expression that it sees for
cx->sd_av==NULL:
if (-ENODEV)
which it considers nonsense because it is always true and the value gets
ignored.
Let me try again without ccache for now and see what warnings remain.
We can find a solution for those first, and then decide how to deal with
ccache.
Arnd
