Hi Heiner, On 09/02/18 17:59, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > 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. Thankyou - I will take a look (albeit - next week now!) -- Regards Kieran > > Rgds, Heiner > >> -- >> Regards >> >> Kieran Bingham >> . >> >
