Am 09.02.2018 um 11:01 schrieb Kieran Bingham: > Hi Wolfram, > > As part of my work looking at using i2c_new_secondary_device() to move address > mappings into the device tree, it has become evident that the return code of the > i2c_new_secondary_device() is obfuscated, and is simply a valid client - or NULL. > > This means that we must 'guess' as to whether the device failed due to a memory > allocation, or if the device address was already in use (perhaps a more common > failure). > > Because of this - I would like to see the return codes of > i2c_new_secondary_device(), ic2_new_dummy(), and therefore i2c_new_device() > support returning ERR_PTR()s rather than a client or NULL. > > These functions are used fairly extensively - thus it will be a fair bit of work > (or a good coccinelle script) - So I'd like to ask your opinion on the validity > of this task before I commence anything down that rabbit hole! > > Any comments? Pre-ack/nack? (from anyone?) > This has been addressed as part of adding a devm_i2c_new_dummy(). Related patches are in status "under review" since end of December. See also here: https://marc.info/?l=linux-i2c&m=151375074832371&w=2 https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/851268/ Maybe these patches cover already what you need. Rgds, Heiner > -- > Regards > > Kieran Bingham > . >
