Hi Luca, Thanks for the feedback. > -----Original Message----- > From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 1:56 PM > To: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Michael Turquette > <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux- > clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>; Marek > Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx>; Alexander Helms <alexander.helms.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx>; > Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux- > renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: vc5: Use i2c_get_match_data() instead of > device_get_match_data() > > Hello Biju, > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 07:46:34 +0000 > Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Geert, > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: vc5: Use i2c_get_match_data() instead > > > of > > > device_get_match_data() > > > > > > Hi Biju, > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 5:44 PM Biju Das > > > <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > The device_get_match_data(), is to get match data for firmware > > > > interfaces such as just OF/ACPI. This driver has I2C matching > > > > table as well. Use > > > > i2c_get_match_data() to get match data for I2C, ACPI and DT-based > > > > matching. > > Good point, thanks! > > > > > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c > > > > @@ -956,7 +956,9 @@ static int vc5_probe(struct i2c_client > > > > *client) > > > > > > > > i2c_set_clientdata(client, vc5); > > > > vc5->client = client; > > > > - vc5->chip_info = device_get_match_data(&client->dev); > > > > + vc5->chip_info = i2c_get_match_data(client); > > > > + if (!vc5->chip_info) > > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > > > > Can this actually happen? All tables have data pointers. > > > > It is not needed. I just want to avoid people sending patches as this > > function can return NULL, so add a check. > > > > Please let me know, whether I should remove this? > > I am happy to send V2 taking out this check. > > I cannot foresee any sensible future use case for adding an entry > without a data pointer as the whole driver is now heavily based on this > data to handle so many variants. Also, the error checking did not exist > before and the i2c match table is not introducing anything new in terms > of .driver_data values. > > Thus I vote for not adding any error checking here. OK will remove error checking in next version. Cheers, Biju
