Hi Laurent,
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:55:43AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
...
> > >> +static int parse_endpoint(
> > >> + struct device *dev, struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier,
> > >> + struct fwnode_handle *endpoint, unsigned int asd_struct_size,
> > >> + int (*parse_single)(struct device *dev,
> > >> + struct v4l2_fwnode_endpoint *vep,
> > >> + struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd))
> > >> +{
> > >> + struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd;
> > >> + struct v4l2_fwnode_endpoint *vep;
> > >> + int ret = 0;
> > >> +
> > >> + asd = kzalloc(asd_struct_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > >> + if (!asd)
> > >> + return -ENOMEM;
> > >> +
> > >> + asd->match.fwnode.fwnode =
> > >> + fwnode_graph_get_remote_port_parent(endpoint);
> > >> + if (!asd->match.fwnode.fwnode) {
> > >> + dev_warn(dev, "bad remote port parent\n");
> > >> + ret = -EINVAL;
> > >> + goto out_err;
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > >> + /* Ignore endpoints the parsing of which failed. */
> > >
> > > You don't ignore them anymore, the comment should be updated.
> >
> > Hmm. I actually intended to do something else about this. :-) As there's a
> > single error code, handling that would need to be done a little bit
> > differently right now.
> >
> > I'd print a warning and proceed. What do you think?
> >
> > Even if there's a bad DT endpoint, that shouldn't prevent the rest from
> > working, right?
>
> I think it should, to make sure we catch DT issues. We both know how many
> vendors don't care about warnings, so I'd rather fail completely to ensure DT
> will be fixed (and even ten I wouldn't be surprised if some vendors patched
> the code to remove the check instead of fixing their DT ;-)).
If they test the DTS, they should find out that the device does not work.
If they do not, some devices will work even if others fail.
Therefore I don't see why everything should fail when a part of faulty.
Extending that a little, you should also halt the system to make sure the
problem will be noticed. :-)
> > >> @@ -121,6 +122,21 @@ int v4l2_async_notifier_register(struct v4l2_device
> > >> *v4l2_dev, void v4l2_async_notifier_unregister(struct
> > >> v4l2_async_notifier *notifier);
> > >>
> > >> /**
> > >> + * v4l2_async_notifier_release - release notifier resources
> > >> + * @notifier: pointer to &struct v4l2_async_notifier
> > >
> > > That's quite obvious given the type of the argument. It would be much more
> > > useful to tell which notifier pointer this function expects (although in
> > > this case it should be obvious too): "(pointer to )?the notifier whose
> > > resources will be released".
> >
> > This fully matches to the documentation elsewhere in the same file. :-)
>
> Feel free to fix the rest of the file :-)
That's out of scope of this patch.
> > > "The function can be called multiple times to populate the same notifier
> > > from endpoints of different @dev devices before registering the notifier.
> > > It can't be called anymore once the notifier has been registered."
> >
> > I don't think there's really a use case for calling this for more than one
> > device, is there?
>
> I don't have one in mind, but I was wondering. If there isn't then you don't
> need notifier_realloc(), which could be moved to the next patch.
I don't think there's even benefit from moving it to the next patch, it
just adds to the reviewable code, nothing else.
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ai...@linux.intel.com
