From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S968341AbdAEHqQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:46:16 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:34935 "EHLO mail-wm0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S968295AbdAEHqI (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2017 02:46:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 07:49:52 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Jonathan Cameron , Hartmut Knaack , Lars-Peter Clausen , Peter Meerwald-Stadler , Richard Purdie , Jacek Anaszewski , Pavel Machek , Jingoo Han , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] mfd: lm3533: Support initialization from Device Tree Message-ID: <20170105074952.GG24225@dell> References: <20161226181153.11271-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> <20161226181153.11271-2-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> <20170104115424.GH27589@dell> <20170104192608.GN10531@minitux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20170104192608.GN10531@minitux> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 04 Jan 2017, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Wed 04 Jan 03:54 PST 2017, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > > > From: Bjorn Andersson > > > > > > Implement support for initialization of the lm3533 driver core and > > > probing child devices from Device Tree. > > > > > [..] > > > > @@ -512,6 +514,11 @@ static int lm3533_device_init(struct lm3533 *lm3533) > > > lm3533_device_bl_init(lm3533); > > > lm3533_device_led_init(lm3533); > > > > > > + if (lm3533->dev->of_node) { > > > + of_platform_populate(lm3533->dev->of_node, NULL, NULL, > > > + lm3533->dev); > > > + } > > > > I think it's save to call of_platform_populate(), even if !of_node. > > It will just fail and return an error code, which you are ignoring > > anyway. > > > > I thought so too, but that's apparently how you trigger probing children > of the root node. So we're stuck with a conditional. Ah, so this is to protect against the case where DT is present, but a node for this device is not (or is disabled), so is left unprobed. Then the bind is initiated via I2C? Or something else? > > > static int lm3533_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, > > > const struct i2c_device_id *id) > > > { > > [..] > > > > > > > + if (i2c->dev.of_node) { > > > > I'd prefer this check to be placed in lm3533_pdata_from_of_node(). > > > > Just return silently if !dev->of_node. > > > > I agree, will update this. > > > > + ret = lm3533_pdata_from_of_node(lm3533->dev); > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > + return ret; > > > + } > > > + > > > return lm3533_device_init(lm3533); > > > } > > > > > Regards, > Bjorn -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog