Hi Doug,
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Vivek,
>
> Sorry for being so absent from these reviews. I'll try to look over a
> few patches today, but please don't hold up anything on account of my
> reviews. I'm definitely a bit of an interested bystander in USB land.
> ;)
>
> In general things look pretty good here. :) One last comment below...
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Vivek Gautam
> <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> +static int
> samsung_usbphy_parse_dt(struct samsung_usbphy *sphy)
>> +{
>> + struct device_node *usbphy_sys;
>> +
>> + /* Getting node for system controller interface for usb-phy */
>> + usbphy_sys = of_get_child_by_name(sphy->dev->of_node, "usbphy-sys");
>> + if (!usbphy_sys)
>> + dev_warn(sphy->dev, "No sys-controller interface for usb-phy\n");
>
> Seems like you ought to return with an error here. Calling of_iomap()
> with a NULL value seems undesirable.
>
Yeah, true. This should have been returning error value alongwith dev_err().
>> +
>> + sphy->pmuregs = of_iomap(usbphy_sys, 0);
>> +
>> + of_node_put(usbphy_sys);
>> +
>> + if (sphy->pmuregs == NULL) {
>> + dev_err(sphy->dev, "Can't get usb-phy pmu control register\n");
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Set isolation here for phy.
>> + * Here 'on = true' would mean USB PHY block is isolated, hence
>> + * de-activated and vice-versa.
>> + */
>
> Thank you very much for this comment. :) This explains one of the
> confusions I had earlier...
>
Your welcome :-)
>
> Once you fix the one error condition above you can add my
> "Reviewed-by". Thanks!
>
Sure, thanks !!
--
Thanks & Regards
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
