On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:20:26PM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote: > On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:42:10 +0300 > Antony Pavlov <antonynpavlov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > At the moment of_new_property() uses xfunctions for memory > > allocation so we can use xstrdup() instead of strdup() > > for code simplification. > > > > A side effect of this commmit is that > > the of_new_property() function can't return NULL > > anymore if CONFIG_OFTREE is set. > > If of_new_property() can't return NULL we can skip all numerous > checks after of_new_property() call. So the checks are actual only > if CONFIG_OFTREE isn't set. > > Have you any sugestions on removing of_new_property() return value checks? I'm not sure removing these checks is a good idea. One possible error return for of_new_property() could be -EEXIST. Right now we do not check is the property already exists and just create a second property with the same name. Also if you consider FIT images: These store a whole kernel in a device tree property, so the xmalloc() we have for allocating the data for the property might better be malloc() so that it can fail. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
