Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-177935-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <5bcfbb01-9650-4420-8982-af6537d7e7b5@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 18:48:31 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] media: qcom: camss: Decouple VFE from CSID
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Gjorgji Rosikopulos (Consultant)" <quic_grosikop@quicinc.com>,
 Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org>, rfoss@kernel.org,
 todor.too@gmail.com, andersson@kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@linaro.org,
 mchehab@kernel.org
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com,
 hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl, quic_hariramp@quicinc.com
References: <20240411124543.199-1-quic_grosikop@quicinc.com>
 <20240411124543.199-9-quic_grosikop@quicinc.com>
 <adbd0eeb-62c0-46a3-9cbb-92f6fde6c152@linaro.org>
 <b4bf05b5-4e03-40d9-8149-956b55d91a41@quicinc.com>
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <b4bf05b5-4e03-40d9-8149-956b55d91a41@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 13/05/2024 17:26, Gjorgji Rosikopulos (Consultant) wrote:
>>> +static void __iomem
>>> +*vfe_parent_dev_ops_get_base_address(struct camss *camss, int id)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (id < camss->res->vfe_num) {
>>> +        struct vfe_device *vfe = &camss->vfe[id];
>>> +
>>> +        return vfe->base;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    return NULL;
>> I can find code snippets above like
>>
>>      if (IS_ERR(csid->base))
>>          ...
>>
>> So, is it really a good idea to return NULL on error? Probably it might
>> be better
>> to return a reasonable error to the caller.
> As general rule i agree. But here either we have address or not,
> i dont see the reason to return an error code. Also i dont see what
> caller will do if he gets error code instead of NULL.
> I am refering in particular this case. If we have different error paths
> of failiure maybe it will more sense.

I don't see a compelling reason to change the submitted code. I'd leave 
well-enough alone for v4.

Please keep changes for V4 restricted to formatting/line indentation/SPDX.

I don't want to have to reverify all of this code unless a bug is found.

---
bod