On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:15:49 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Yes, indeed I prefer NULL check because the user can know the error
> at the right place. I share your concern about the code addition,
> though :)
>
> I already made a patch below, but it's totally untested.
> It'd be helpful if someone can do review and build-test it.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
>
> ---
> diff --git a/sound/aoa/codecs/tas.c b/sound/aoa/codecs/tas.c
> index f0ebc97..0f810c8 100644
> --- a/sound/aoa/codecs/tas.c
> +++ b/sound/aoa/codecs/tas.c
> @@ -897,6 +897,10 @@ static int tas_create(struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
> client = i2c_new_device(adapter, &info);
> if (!client)
> return -ENODEV;
> + if (!client->driver) {
> + i2c_unregister_device(client);
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
>
> /*
> * Let i2c-core delete that device on driver removal.
> diff --git a/sound/ppc/keywest.c b/sound/ppc/keywest.c
> index 835fa19..473c5a6 100644
> --- a/sound/ppc/keywest.c
> +++ b/sound/ppc/keywest.c
> @@ -59,6 +59,13 @@ static int keywest_attach_adapter(struct i2c_adapter
> *adapter)
> strlcpy(info.type, "keywest", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
> info.addr = keywest_ctx->addr;
> keywest_ctx->client = i2c_new_device(adapter, &info);
> + if (!keywest_ctx->client)
> + return -ENODEV;
> + if (!keywest_ctx->client->driver) {
> + i2c_unregister_device(keywest_ctx->client);
> + keywest_ctx->client = NULL;
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
>
> /*
> * Let i2c-core delete that device on driver removal.
This looks good to me. Please add the following comment before the
client->driver check in both drivers:
/*
* We know the driver is already loaded, so the device should be
* already bound. If not it means binding failed, and then there
* is no point in keeping the device instantiated.
*/
Otherwise it's a little difficult to understand why the check is there.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
