On 18/11/2019 12:39 pm, Andrew Murray wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:20:10PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 18/11/2019 11:59 am, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:54:20PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
Null checks are both cheaper and more readable than having !IS_ERR()
splattered everywhere.
- if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3))
+ if (!rockchip->vpcie3v3)
return;
/*
@@ -611,6 +611,7 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_host_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie12v) != -ENODEV)
return PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie12v);
dev_info(dev, "no vpcie12v regulator found\n");
+ rockchip->vpcie12v = NULL;
According to the API NULL is a valid regulator. We don't currently
actually do this but it's storing up surprises if you treat it as
invalid.
Ah, OK - I'd assumed NULL wasn't valid based on regulator_enable()
immediately dereferencing its argument without any checks. If we'd rather
not bake in that assumption then this patch can happily be ignored.
I'd suggest we drop this patch.
"IS_ERR(ptr)" is not the same as "!ptr", for values of ptr between 0 and
-4095 inclusive.
Hence the explicit initial "if (IS_ERR(ptr)) ptr = NULL;" condition
quoted above ;)
But yeah, it was merely an attempt at a minor cosmetic cleanup, so let's
just forget about it to avoid any possible confusion.
Cheers,
Robin.
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
