2024-05-10 15:10:58

by Dan Carpenter

Subject: [PATCH] media: ipu-bridge: fix error code in ipu_bridge_init()

Return -EINVAL if "bridge->n_sensors == 0". Don't return success.

Fixes: 881ca25978c6 ("media: ipu3-cio2: rename cio2 bridge to ipu bridge and move out of ipu3")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c b/drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c
index 61750cc98d70..a009ee73e26f 100644
--- a/drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c
+++ b/drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c
@@ -839,8 +839,10 @@ int ipu_bridge_init(struct device *dev,
bridge->data_lanes[i] = i + 1;

ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
- if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0)
+ if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
+ ret = ret ?: -EINVAL;
goto err_unregister_ipu;
+ }

dev_info(dev, "Connected %d cameras\n", bridge->n_sensors);

--
2.43.0

2024-05-10 15:27:27

by Andy Shevchenko

Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: ipu-bridge: fix error code in ipu_bridge_init()

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:10:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Return -EINVAL if "bridge->n_sensors == 0". Don't return success.

..

> ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
> - if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0)
> + if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
> + ret = ret ?: -EINVAL;
> goto err_unregister_ipu;
> + }

I would split:

ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
if (ret)
goto err_unregister_ipu;

if (bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto err_unregister_ipu;
}

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

2024-05-10 15:28:38

by Dan Carpenter

Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: ipu-bridge: fix error code in ipu_bridge_init()

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:18:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:10:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Return -EINVAL if "bridge->n_sensors == 0". Don't return success.
>
> ...
>
> > ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
> > - if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0)
> > + if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
> > + ret = ret ?: -EINVAL;
> > goto err_unregister_ipu;
> > + }
>
> I would split:
>
> ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
> if (ret)
> goto err_unregister_ipu;
>
> if (bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
> ret = -EINVAL;
> goto err_unregister_ipu;
> }

It's always hard to know which way to go on these... I wrote it that
way in my first draft. It's my prefered way as well but not everyone
agrees. I'll resend.

regards,
dan carpenter

2024-05-10 15:38:10

by Andy Shevchenko

Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: ipu-bridge: fix error code in ipu_bridge_init()

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:27:30PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:18:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:10:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > Return -EINVAL if "bridge->n_sensors == 0". Don't return success.

..

> > > ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
> > > - if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0)
> > > + if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
> > > + ret = ret ?: -EINVAL;
> > > goto err_unregister_ipu;
> > > + }
> >
> > I would split:
> >
> > ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
> > if (ret)
> > goto err_unregister_ipu;
> >
> > if (bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > goto err_unregister_ipu;
> > }
>
> It's always hard to know which way to go on these... I wrote it that
> way in my first draft. It's my prefered way as well but not everyone
> agrees. I'll resend.

Is the generated assembly the same?

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

2024-05-10 15:53:29

by Dan Carpenter

Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: ipu-bridge: fix error code in ipu_bridge_init()

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:36:36PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:27:30PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:18:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:10:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > Return -EINVAL if "bridge->n_sensors == 0". Don't return success.
>
> ...
>
> > > > ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
> > > > - if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0)
> > > > + if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
> > > > + ret = ret ?: -EINVAL;
> > > > goto err_unregister_ipu;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > I would split:
> > >
> > > ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
> > > if (ret)
> > > goto err_unregister_ipu;
> > >
> > > if (bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
> > > ret = -EINVAL;
> > > goto err_unregister_ipu;
> > > }
> >
> > It's always hard to know which way to go on these... I wrote it that
> > way in my first draft. It's my prefered way as well but not everyone
> > agrees. I'll resend.
>
> Is the generated assembly the same?

Yeah, it does.

regards,
dan carpenter