On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 04:25:59 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 08/26/2015 04:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 01:20:44 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> Return -ENXIO if device property array access functions don't find > >> a suitable firmware interface. > >> > >> This lets drivers decide if they should use available platform data > >> instead. > >> > >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> > >> --- > >> v2: Added patch > >> > >> drivers/base/property.c | 7 +++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/base/property.c b/drivers/base/property.c > >> index 287704d680bf..9600b824d138 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/base/property.c > >> +++ b/drivers/base/property.c > >> @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ static int pset_prop_read_array(struct property_set > >> *pset, const char *name, > >> struct property_entry *prop; > >> unsigned int item_size; > >> > >> + if (!pset) > >> + return -ENXIO; > >> + > > > > This isn't exactly straightforward, because it relies on the fact that > > pset_prop_read_array() is the last thing tried by FWNODE_PROP_READ_ARRAY() > > and fwnode_property_read_string_array(). A comment about that might be > > helpful. > > > I see two options: Add a comment above, or change the calling code to > > ... > else if (is_pset(fwnode)) > return pset_prop_read_array(to_pset(fwnode), propname, > DEV_PROP_STRING, val, nval); > return -ENXIO; > > which would make it obvious and avoid side effects if the code is changed > later on. Would you be ok with this ?
The second option is obviously cleaner to me and I prefer cleaner code. :-) Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
