Hi Sakari, On 06/14/2017 11:19 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Jacek, > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:14:13PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >> Hi Sakari, >> >> On 06/14/2017 11:47 AM, Sakari Ailus wrote: >>> None of the flash operations are not mandatory and therefore there should >>> be no need for the flash ops structure either. Accept NULL. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ai...@linux.intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-flash-led-class.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-flash-led-class.c >>> b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-flash-led-class.c >>> index 6d69119..fdb79da 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-flash-led-class.c >>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-flash-led-class.c >>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ >>> #include <media/v4l2-flash-led-class.h> >>> >>> #define has_flash_op(v4l2_flash, op) \ >>> - (v4l2_flash && v4l2_flash->ops->op) >>> + (v4l2_flash && v4l2_flash->ops && v4l2_flash->ops->op) >> >> This change doesn't seem to be related to the patch subject. > > Yes, it is: if there's a chance that ops is NULL, then you have to test here > you actually have the ops struct around. The test is no longer in > v4l2_flash_init().
Indeed. Reviewed-by: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszew...@gmail.com> >>> #define call_flash_op(v4l2_flash, op, arg) \ >>> (has_flash_op(v4l2_flash, op) ? \ >>> @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ struct v4l2_flash *v4l2_flash_init( >>> struct v4l2_subdev *sd; >>> int ret; >>> >>> - if (!fled_cdev || !ops || !config) >>> + if (!fled_cdev || !config) >>> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); >>> >>> led_cdev = &fled_cdev->led_cdev; >>> > -- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski
