On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 02:01:33PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 02:06:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:49:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
- struct device *dev = ctlr->dev.parent;
- /* Chipselects are numbered 0..max; validate. */
- if (spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0) >= ctlr->num_chipselect) {
dev_err(dev, "cs%d >= max %d\n", spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0),ctlr->num_chipselect);return -EINVAL;- }
- /* Set the bus ID string */
- spi_dev_set_name(spi);
I see that this is duplicating spi_add_device() (and we really could do better with code sharing there I think) but I can't immediately see where the duplication that's intended to be elimiated is here - where else in the one call path that spi_add_device_locked() has would we do the above? Based on the changelog I was expecting to see some duplicated code in the function itself.
Oh, by some reason Sebastian wasn't in this rather long Cc list. Added him.
Reading again I don't see any useful explanation why that piece of code has to be duplicated among these two functions. It's 100% a copy.
Sebastian, can you shed some light here?
The patch in this thread is obviously wrong. It results in the checks never beeing called for spi_add_device_locked(). The copy is in spi_add_device() and those two are not calling into each other.
Ah, now I see, I missed __ in the name. Thank you for opening my eyes!
But it should be fine to move the code to the start of __spi_add_device(), which allows removing the duplication. In that case the code will be run with the add_lock held, which is probably what I was worried about two years ago. Looking at it again, the lock is held anyways in case of spi_add_device_locked().
Right, I will re-do that.