[PATCH] brcm80211: brcmsmac: Drop BMCMA consistency check

[PATCH] brcm80211: brcmsmac: Drop BMCMA consistency check

[Linus Walleij]

The driver looks up the BCMA parent GPIO driver and checks that
this succeeds, but then it goes on to use the deprecated GPIO
call gpio_is_valid() to check the consistency of the .base
member of the BCMA GPIO struct. Surely this belongs in the
BCMA driver: we cannot have all drivers performing cosistency
checks on the internals of things they are passed.

Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c
index c1b9ac692d26..1cce92c5780f 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ int brcms_led_register(struct brcms_info *wl)
 	int hwnum = -1;
 	enum gpio_lookup_flags lflags = GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH;
 
-	if (!bcma_gpio || !gpio_is_valid(bcma_gpio->base))
+	if (!bcma_gpio)
 		return -ENODEV;
 
 	/* find radio enabled LED */
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] brcm80211: brcmsmac: Drop BMCMA consistency check

[Arend Van Spriel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 811 bytes --]

On October 24, 2022 2:40:08 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:

> The driver looks up the BCMA parent GPIO driver and checks that
> this succeeds, but then it goes on to use the deprecated GPIO
> call gpio_is_valid() to check the consistency of the .base
> member of the BCMA GPIO struct. Surely this belongs in the
> BCMA driver: we cannot have all drivers performing cosistency

Should be: consistency

>
> checks on the internals of things they are passed.

Apart from the typo in the subject and missing wifi: prefix (replace 
'brcm80211' by 'wifi')...

Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/led.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)




[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4219 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] brcm80211: brcmsmac: Drop BMCMA consistency check

[Kalle Valo]

Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> writes:

> On October 24, 2022 2:40:08 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> The driver looks up the BCMA parent GPIO driver and checks that
>> this succeeds, but then it goes on to use the deprecated GPIO
>> call gpio_is_valid() to check the consistency of the .base
>> member of the BCMA GPIO struct. Surely this belongs in the
>> BCMA driver: we cannot have all drivers performing cosistency
>
> Should be: consistency
>
>>
>> checks on the internals of things they are passed.
>
> Apart from the typo in the subject and missing wifi: prefix (replace
> 'brcm80211' by 'wifi')...

I can fix those.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches

Re: [PATCH] brcm80211: brcmsmac: Drop BMCMA consistency check

[Linus Walleij]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:09 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> wrote:

> Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> writes:
>
> > On October 24, 2022 2:40:08 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The driver looks up the BCMA parent GPIO driver and checks that
> >> this succeeds, but then it goes on to use the deprecated GPIO
> >> call gpio_is_valid() to check the consistency of the .base
> >> member of the BCMA GPIO struct. Surely this belongs in the
> >> BCMA driver: we cannot have all drivers performing cosistency
> >
> > Should be: consistency
> >
> >>
> >> checks on the internals of things they are passed.
> >
> > Apart from the typo in the subject and missing wifi: prefix (replace
> > 'brcm80211' by 'wifi')...
>
> I can fix those.

I am sending a combined patch with this and the other bcma patch
because they happen to depend on each other. Dunno how to tag
a patch that affects bcma and brcn80211 at the same time so you
will probably have to edit it anyway.

Yours,
Linus Walleij