From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kieran Bingham Subject: i2c_new_{secondary_device,dummy,device}() return type. Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:01:09 +0000 Message-ID: <6f03d1e1-b542-99cb-7cfe-8eae9addd8d9@ideasonboard.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from galahad.ideasonboard.com ([185.26.127.97]:60705 "EHLO galahad.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750830AbeBIKBO (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2018 05:01:14 -0500 Content-Language: en-GB Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang , Linux I2C , "open list:MEDIA DRIVERS FOR RENESAS - FCP" Cc: Laurent Pinchart 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?)