On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>
> > When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> > return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> > never do something different based on this.
> >
> > Clean up the vchiq_arm code by not caring about the value of debugfs
> > calls. This ends up removing a number of lines of code that are not
> > needed.
> >
> > Cc: Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net>
> > Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wah...@i2se.com>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
> > Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@oracle.com>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
> > Cc: Keerthi Reddy <keerthigd4...@gmail.com>
> > Cc: linux-rpi-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> > Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > ---
> > .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 13 +---
> > .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_debugfs.c | 72 +++----------------
> > .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_debugfs.h | 4 +-
> > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
> >
>
> > diff --git
> > a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_debugfs.c
> > b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_debugfs.c
> > index 766b4fe5f32c..103fec955e2c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_debugfs.c
>
> > @@ -314,31 +284,13 @@ void vchiq_debugfs_remove_instance(VCHIQ_INSTANCE_T
> > instance)
> > debugfs_remove_recursive(node->dentry);
> > }
> >
> > -int vchiq_debugfs_init(void)
> > +void vchiq_debugfs_init(void)
> > {
> > - BUG_ON(debugfs_info.vchiq_cfg_dir != NULL);
> > -
> > debugfs_info.vchiq_cfg_dir = debugfs_create_dir("vchiq", NULL);
> > - if (debugfs_info.vchiq_cfg_dir == NULL)
> > - goto fail;
> > -
>
> I think now that we allow successful probe with this value NULL, module
> remove could vchiq_debugfs_deinit() -> vchiq_debugfs_top() -> BUG_ON().
> I think the right solution would be to just drop that BUG_ON(). With
> that change (and probably just garbage-collecting that function), this
> will be enthusiastically:
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net>
Much better idea, I just did that and will send out the patch series
now. The end result is nicer:
3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 140 deletions(-)
thanks for the suggestion.
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
