On Friday, 9 February 2018 12:01:09 EET Kieran Bingham wrote:
> Hi Wolfram,
> As part of my work looking at using i2c_new_secondary_device() to move
> address mappings into the device tree, it has become evident that the
> return code of the i2c_new_secondary_device() is obfuscated, and is simply
> a valid client - or NULL.
> This means that we must 'guess' as to whether the device failed due to a
> memory allocation, or if the device address was already in use (perhaps a
> more common failure).
> Because of this - I would like to see the return codes of
> i2c_new_secondary_device(), ic2_new_dummy(), and therefore i2c_new_device()
> support returning ERR_PTR()s rather than a client or NULL.
> These functions are used fairly extensively - thus it will be a fair bit of
> work (or a good coccinelle script) - So I'd like to ask your opinion on the
> validity of this task before I commence anything down that rabbit hole!
> Any comments? Pre-ack/nack? (from anyone?)
Pre-ack from me :-)