Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:18:25 +0200
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>
To:     Dan Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com,
        heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com,
        kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org,
        robh@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, pmladek@suse.com, mchehab@kernel.org,
        tian.shu.qiu@intel.com, bingbu.cao@intel.com,
        sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com, yong.zhi@intel.com,
        rafael@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kitakar@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 9/9] ipu3-cio2: Add functionality allowing
 software_node connections to sensors on platforms designed for Windows
Message-ID: <20201025111824.GB3774@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk>
References: <20201019225903.14276-1-djrscally@gmail.com>
 <20201019225903.14276-10-djrscally@gmail.com>
 <20201024151458.GA3774@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk>
 <18a3661c-4bee-7421-9121-acd65401cf16@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <18a3661c-4bee-7421-9121-acd65401cf16@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

Hi Daniel,

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 09:28:07PM +0100, Dan Scally wrote:
...
> >> +int cio2_bridge_build(struct pci_dev *cio2)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +
> >> +	pci_dev_get(cio2);
> > Could you check that this isn't used by more than one user? The current
> > implementation assumes that. I'm not sure if there could be more instances
> > of CIO2 but if there were, that'd be an issue currently.
> 
> I can check; can't think of anything better than just failing out if it
> turns out to be in use already though - any ideas or is that appropriate?

A negative error code would be appropriate, e.g. -EBUSY.

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus