On 09/26/2018 07:42 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 21 September 2018 at 16:59, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The code fails to check if ops is non-NULL before using it's members. >> Add the missing check and while at it, flip the condition to make it >> more obvious what is actually happening. >> >> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com> >> Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> >> --- >> drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c | 12 ++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c b/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c >> index eb118f3496..de523a76ad 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c >> @@ -241,9 +241,9 @@ int pci_bus_write_config(struct udevice *bus, pci_dev_t >> bdf, int offset, >> struct dm_pci_ops *ops; >> >> ops = pci_get_ops(bus); >> - if (!ops->write_config) >> - return -ENOSYS; >> - return ops->write_config(bus, bdf, offset, value, size); >> + if (ops && ops->write_config) >> + return ops->write_config(bus, bdf, offset, value, size); > > I'd like to avoid this if possible, since it bloats code. If you don't > provide operations you are on your own! > > Ideas: > - add it behind DEBUG > - check it once in the uclass when binding - e.g. in uclass_add() - > and print a warning? > > I have pushed back pretty hard against people adding checks for things > which should not be true in normal systems. Partly it is just for the > confusion it adds, partly for efficiency. Perhaps we should document > the pre-conditions that DM guarantees somewhere?
Seems unneeded, dropped. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
