by Jakob Hauser

Hi,

On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 07:03:03PM +0200, Jakob Hauser wrote:
> Hi Christophe, Hi all,
>
> On 14.05.23 16:31, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > Le 14/05/2023 ? 14:31, Jakob Hauser a ?crit?:
>
> ...
>
> > > +static int rt5033_charger_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +{
> > > +??? struct rt5033_charger *charger;
> > > +??? struct power_supply_config psy_cfg = {};
> > > +??? int ret;
> > > +
> > > +??? charger = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*charger), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +??? if (!charger)
> > > +??????? return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +??? platform_set_drvdata(pdev, charger);
> > > +??? charger->dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > +??? charger->regmap = dev_get_regmap(pdev->dev.parent, NULL);
> > > +
> > > +??? psy_cfg.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > > +??? psy_cfg.drv_data = charger;
> > > +
> > > +??? charger->psy = devm_power_supply_register(&pdev->dev,
> > > +????????????????????????? &rt5033_charger_desc,
> > > +????????????????????????? &psy_cfg);
> > > +??? if (IS_ERR(charger->psy))
> > > +??????? return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(charger->psy),
> > > +???????????????????? "Failed to register power supply\n");
> > > +
> > > +??? charger->chg = rt5033_charger_dt_init(charger);
> > > +??? if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(charger->chg))
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Nit: charger->chg can't be NULL.
> >
> > > +??????? return -ENODEV;
> >
> > Why bother returning specific error code in rt5033_charger_dt_init() if
> > they are eaten here.
> >
> > return PTR_ERR(charger->chg)?
> >
>
> Thanks for the heads-up.
>
> ...
>
> Writing towards the list:
>
> The way it is done in the current patchset is taken from the original
> patchset of March 2015 [2]. I kept the original as far as possible.
>
> By now I'm not happy with the way of initializing "struct
> rt5033_charger_data". I realized this in the course of the review. As I
> didn't want to disturb the review with this, I had planned a small clean-up
> patch after this review is finished.
>
> The cause of the complicated handling of "struct rt5033_charger_data" lies
> inside of the "struct rt5033_charger". There the "struct
> rt5033_charger_data" is initialized as pointer *chg.
>
> The clean-up would be:
>
> - Inside of "struct rt5033_charger" change the
> "struct rt5033_charger_data" to non-pointer "chg". It is then
> initialized right away.
>
> struct rt5033_charger_data chg;
>
> - Change function rt5033_charger_dt_init() from type
> "struct rt5033_charger_data" to type "int".
>
> static int rt5033_charger_dt_init(struct rt5033_charger *charger)
>
> - In the probe function, call the function rt5033_charger_dt_init() in
> the same way like e.g. the following rt5033_charger_reg_init():
>
> ret = rt5033_charger_dt_init(charger);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - Within function rt5033_charger_dt_init() and all other functions
> using the charger data, get the address of the already-initialized
> struct &charger->chg.
>
> struct rt5033_charger_data *chg = &charger->chg;
>
> This would also solve the issue reported by Christophe because the errors
> inside function rt5033_charger_dt_init() would be passed to the probe
> function by the "ret =" and being returned there with "return ret".
>
> I'm not sure how to handle this now. I would prefer to get the review of
> this patchset finished and send a clean-up patch afterwards.
>
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/#u

Sounds sensible, until then please use 'return PTR_ERR(charger->chg)'
as suggested by Christophe. With this fixed:

Acked-by: Sebastian Reichel <[email protected]>

-- Sebastian

Attachments:

(No filename) (3.73 kB)
signature.asc (849.00 B)
Download all attachments