Re: [RFC 04/42] drivers/dma: don't check resource with devm_ioremap_resource

[Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>]

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 08:28:07PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 09:34:40PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 01:25:36PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > On 05/10/2013 11:57 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:35:32AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > >> On 05/10/2013 02:16 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > >>> devm_ioremap_resource does sanity checks on the given resource. No need to
> > > >>> duplicate this in the driver.
> > > >>
> > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/tegra20-apb-dma.c b/drivers/dma/tegra20-apb-dma.c
> > > >>
> > > >>>  	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> > > >>> -	if (!res) {
> > > >>> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No mem resource for DMA\n");
> > > >>> -		return -EINVAL;
> > > >>> -	}
> > > >>> -
> > > >>>  	tdma->base_addr = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> > > >>
> > > >> One issue here is that it's not obvious just from reading the code
> > > >> that's left behind that the "missing" error-checking of the
> > > >> platform_get_resource() return value is OK because
> > > >> devm_ioremap_resource() will check it "for us". Everyone now has to
> > > >> mentally maintain a list of exceptions where it's OK not to error-check.
> > > > 
> > > > My goal is to make not-checking the standard case with devm.
> > > 
> > > OK, if no parameters passed to any devm function every need to be
> > > error-checked, that'll certainly be a bit easier to remember.
> > Okay to remove the log message and move to devm_ but I dont agree with this
> > patch not returning error above. We shouldnt supress the error..
> 
> The error will be reported because devm_ioremap_resource will return an
> ERR_PTR.
And this patch removed the check on 'res' pointer, so on failure we continue...

--
~Vinod
>