From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: i2c_new_{secondary_device,dummy,device}() return type. Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 14:26:36 +0200 Message-ID: <9433176.auEORrE3aR@avalon> References: <6f03d1e1-b542-99cb-7cfe-8eae9addd8d9@ideasonboard.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6f03d1e1-b542-99cb-7cfe-8eae9addd8d9@ideasonboard.com> Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kieran Bingham Cc: Wolfram Sang , Linux I2C , "open list:MEDIA DRIVERS FOR RENESAS - FCP" List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Kieran, 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 :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart