On 04/04/2017 03:01 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2017, Lee Jones wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2017, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/04/2017 02:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> If CONFIG_RC_CORE is not enabled then none of the RC code will be
>>>> executed anyway, so we're placing the capability check inside the
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c b/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
>>>> index 37217e2..06a312c 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
>>>> @@ -234,10 +234,10 @@ struct cec_adapter *cec_allocate_adapter(const
>>>> struct cec_adap_ops *ops,
>>>> return ERR_PTR(res);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
>>>> if (!(caps & CEC_CAP_RC))
>>>> return adap;
>>>>
>>>> -#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
>>>> /* Prepare the RC input device */
>>>> adap->rc = rc_allocate_device(RC_DRIVER_SCANCODE);
>>>> if (!adap->rc) {
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not true, there is an #else further down.
>>
>> I saw the #else. It's inert code that becomes function-less.
>>
>>> That said, this code is clearly a bit confusing.
>>>
>>> It would be better if at the beginning of the function we'd have this:
>>>
>>> #if !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
>>> caps &= ~CEC_CAP_RC;
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> and then drop the #else bit and (as you do in this patch) move the #if up.
>>>
>>> Can you make a new patch for this?
>>
>> Sure.
>
> No wait, sorry! This patch is the correct fix.
>
> 'caps' is already indicating !CEC_CAP_RC, which is right.
>
> What we're trying to do here is only consider looking at the
> capabilities if the RC Core is enabled. If it is not enabled, the #if
> still does the right thing and makes sure that the caps are updated.
>
> Please take another look at the semantics.
Ah, yes. You are right. But so am I: the code is just unnecessarily confusing
as is seen by this discussion.
I still would like to see a patch with my proposed solution. The control flow
is much easier to understand that way.
Regards,
Hans
