Hi,
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:
Seems by unknown reason, probably some kind of mis-rebase, the commit 0c79378c0199 ("spi: add ancillary device support") adds a dozen of duplicating lines of code. Drop them.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
drivers/spi/spi.c | 11 ----------- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c index c99ee4164f11..46cbda383228 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c @@ -712,17 +712,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_add_device); static int spi_add_device_locked(struct spi_device *spi) { struct spi_controller *ctlr = spi->controller;
- 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.
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().
Greetings,
-- Sebastian