The first loop ends when platform_get_resource() returns NULL. Can it occur
that no platform_get_resource() succeeded? I think we should error return if
that happens. Could k grow larger than VPIF_DISPLAY_MAX_DEVICES there? Should
we err out in that case?
In the loop `for (i = 0; i < VPIF_DISPLAY_
The first loop ends when platform_get_resource() returns NULL. Can it occur
that no platform_get_resource() succeeded? I think we should error return if
that happens. Could k grow larger than VPIF_DISPLAY_MAX_DEVICES there?
Should we err out in that case?
In the loop `for (i = 0; i < VPIF_DISPLAY_
> Ok. You are right! The ch_params[] is a table for keeping the information
> about different standards supported. For a given stdid in std_info, the
> function matches the stdid with that in the table and get the corresponding
> entry.
+ if (k == VPIF_DISPLAY_MAX_DEVICES)
+
>>>- if (!std_info)
>>>+ if (!std_info->stdid)
>>> return -1;
>>>
>> This is a NACK. We shouldn't check for stdid since the function is
>supposed
>> to update std_info. So just remove
>>
>> if (!std_info)
>> return -1;
>
>I don't see how std_info could get updated.
>>- if (!std_info)
>>+ if (!std_info->stdid)
>> return -1;
>>
> This is a NACK. We shouldn't check for stdid since the function is supposed
> to update std_info. So just remove
>
> if (!std_info)
> return -1;
I don't see how std_info could get updated. consider the l
Roel,
Thanks for the patch.
>In vpif_get_std_info(): std_info doesn't need the NULL test, it was already
>dereferenced anyway. If std_info->stdid is 0 we could early return -1.
>
>In vpif_probe(): local variable q was only assigned. If we error out with
>either last two goto's then j equals VPIF
In vpif_get_std_info(): std_info doesn't need the NULL test, it was already
dereferenced anyway. If std_info->stdid is 0 we could early return -1.
In vpif_probe(): local variable q was only assigned. If we error out with
either last two goto's then j equals VPIF_DISPLAY_MAX_DEVICES. So after the
p
