[PATCH] ASoC: stm32: sai: Use of_device_get_match_data() to simplify code
Retrieve of match data, it's better and cleaner to use 'of_device_get_match_data' over 'of_match_device'.
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com --- sound/soc/stm/stm32_sai_sub.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/stm/stm32_sai_sub.c b/sound/soc/stm/stm32_sai_sub.c index dd636af81..d300605a2 100644 --- a/sound/soc/stm/stm32_sai_sub.c +++ b/sound/soc/stm/stm32_sai_sub.c @@ -1500,7 +1500,6 @@ static int stm32_sai_sub_parse_of(struct platform_device *pdev, static int stm32_sai_sub_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct stm32_sai_sub_data *sai; - const struct of_device_id *of_id; const struct snd_dmaengine_pcm_config *conf = &stm32_sai_pcm_config; int ret;
@@ -1508,10 +1507,9 @@ static int stm32_sai_sub_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) if (!sai) return -ENOMEM;
- of_id = of_match_device(stm32_sai_sub_ids, &pdev->dev); - if (!of_id) + sai->id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev); + if (!sai->id) return -EINVAL; - sai->id = (uintptr_t)of_id->data;
sai->pdev = pdev; mutex_init(&sai->ctrl_lock);
Hello Tang,
Thanks for the patch. Unfortunately this patch introduces a regression.
In the SAI driver of_device_id struct the data is a simple enum cast to void* pointer. static const struct of_device_id stm32_sai_sub_ids[] = { .data = (void *)STM_SAI_A_ID},
This data is an ID which can be set to 0x0. Here we have no way to know to discriminate between an error returned by of_device_get_match_data() or a data id set to 0x0.
The current patch requires a change in the driver. Either changing STM_SAI_x_ID enums, or replacing data by a struct. For instance: struct stm32_sai_comp_data { unsigned int id; } struct stm32_sai_comp_data stm32_sai_comp_data_a = { .id = STM_SAI_A_ID; } struct of_device_id stm32_sai_sub_ids[] = { .data = &stm32_sai_comp_data_a}, }
Regards Olivier
On 5/19/22 14:42, Tang Bin wrote:
Retrieve of match data, it's better and cleaner to use 'of_device_get_match_data' over 'of_match_device'.
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com
sound/soc/stm/stm32_sai_sub.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/stm/stm32_sai_sub.c b/sound/soc/stm/stm32_sai_sub.c index dd636af81..d300605a2 100644 --- a/sound/soc/stm/stm32_sai_sub.c +++ b/sound/soc/stm/stm32_sai_sub.c @@ -1500,7 +1500,6 @@ static int stm32_sai_sub_parse_of(struct platform_device *pdev, static int stm32_sai_sub_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct stm32_sai_sub_data *sai;
- const struct of_device_id *of_id; const struct snd_dmaengine_pcm_config *conf = &stm32_sai_pcm_config; int ret;
@@ -1508,10 +1507,9 @@ static int stm32_sai_sub_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) if (!sai) return -ENOMEM;
- of_id = of_match_device(stm32_sai_sub_ids, &pdev->dev);
- if (!of_id)
- sai->id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
- if (!sai->id) return -EINVAL;
sai->id = (uintptr_t)of_id->data;
sai->pdev = pdev; mutex_init(&sai->ctrl_lock);
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Olivier MOYSAN wrote:
The current patch requires a change in the driver. Either changing STM_SAI_x_ID enums, or replacing data by a struct. For instance: struct stm32_sai_comp_data { unsigned int id; } struct stm32_sai_comp_data stm32_sai_comp_data_a = { .id = STM_SAI_A_ID; } struct of_device_id stm32_sai_sub_ids[] = { .data = &stm32_sai_comp_data_a}, }
Either approach works for me (or a revert for that matter).
Hi Mark & Olivier：
On 2022/5/24 2:57, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Olivier MOYSAN wrote:
The current patch requires a change in the driver. Either changing STM_SAI_x_ID enums, or replacing data by a struct. For instance: struct stm32_sai_comp_data { unsigned int id; } struct stm32_sai_comp_data stm32_sai_comp_data_a = { .id = STM_SAI_A_ID; } struct of_device_id stm32_sai_sub_ids[] = { .data = &stm32_sai_comp_data_a}, }
Either approach works for me (or a revert for that matter).
Thanks for your advice, I was thoughtless.
I think change the date of STM_SAI_x_ID maybe simple. But if we don't change the id,
what about add a "#define" like the line 47:
#define STM_SAI_IS_SUB(x) ((x)->id == STM_SAI_A_ID || (x)->id == STM_SAI_B_ID)
then in the judgement, wu use:
sai->id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
if (!STM_SAI_IS_SUB(sai))
return -EINVAL;
if you think that's ok, I will send patch v2 for you .
Thanks
Tang Bin
Hi Tang,
On 5/24/22 03:44, tangbin wrote:
Hi Mark & Olivier：
On 2022/5/24 2:57, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Olivier MOYSAN wrote:
The current patch requires a change in the driver. Either changing STM_SAI_x_ID enums, or replacing data by a struct. For instance: struct stm32_sai_comp_data { unsigned int id; } struct stm32_sai_comp_data stm32_sai_comp_data_a = { .id = STM_SAI_A_ID; } struct of_device_id stm32_sai_sub_ids[] = { .data = &stm32_sai_comp_data_a}, }
Either approach works for me (or a revert for that matter).
Thanks for your advice, I was thoughtless.
I think change the date of STM_SAI_x_ID maybe simple. But if we don't change the id,
what about add a "#define" like the line 47:
#define STM_SAI_IS_SUB(x) ((x)->id == STM_SAI_A_ID || (x)->id == STM_SAI_B_ID)
then in the judgement, wu use:
sai->id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
if (!STM_SAI_IS_SUB(sai))
return -EINVAL;
if you think that's ok, I will send patch v2 for you .
If we allow null value in STM_SAI_IS_SUB(sai) check, we can miss real NULL pointer error from of_device_get_match_data().
The simplest way is to change STM_SAI_x_ID enums I think. But honnestly, I feel more comfortable to let the driver unchanged.
BRs Olivier
Thanks
Tang Bin
Hi Olivier：
On 2022/5/24 22:30, Olivier MOYSAN wrote:
Hi Tang,
On 5/24/22 03:44, tangbin wrote:
Hi Mark & Olivier：
On 2022/5/24 2:57, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Olivier MOYSAN wrote:
The current patch requires a change in the driver. Either changing STM_SAI_x_ID enums, or replacing data by a struct. For instance: struct stm32_sai_comp_data { unsigned int id; } struct stm32_sai_comp_data stm32_sai_comp_data_a = { .id = STM_SAI_A_ID; } struct of_device_id stm32_sai_sub_ids[] = { .data = &stm32_sai_comp_data_a}, }
Either approach works for me (or a revert for that matter).
Thanks for your advice, I was thoughtless.
I think change the date of STM_SAI_x_ID maybe simple. But if we don't change the id,
what about add a "#define" like the line 47:
#define STM_SAI_IS_SUB(x) ((x)->id == STM_SAI_A_ID || (x)->id == STM_SAI_B_ID)
then in the judgement, wu use:
sai->id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
if (!STM_SAI_IS_SUB(sai))
return -EINVAL;
if you think that's ok, I will send patch v2 for you .
If we allow null value in STM_SAI_IS_SUB(sai) check, we can miss real NULL pointer error from of_device_get_match_data().
The simplest way is to change STM_SAI_x_ID enums I think. But honnestly, I feel more comfortable to let the driver unchanged.
Oh，you are right, I am sorry.
Please forget this patch, I'm sorry to have wasted your time.
But I saw some codes is useless in the line 48 & line 49, I think we can remove it.
If you think so, I will send this patch for you.
Thanks
Tang Bin
BRs Olivier
Thanks
Tang Bin
Hi Tang,
On 5/25/22 09:36, tangbin wrote:
Hi Olivier：
On 2022/5/24 22:30, Olivier MOYSAN wrote:
Hi Tang,
On 5/24/22 03:44, tangbin wrote:
Hi Mark & Olivier：
On 2022/5/24 2:57, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Olivier MOYSAN wrote:
The current patch requires a change in the driver. Either changing STM_SAI_x_ID enums, or replacing data by a struct. For instance: struct stm32_sai_comp_data { unsigned int id; } struct stm32_sai_comp_data stm32_sai_comp_data_a = { .id = STM_SAI_A_ID; } struct of_device_id stm32_sai_sub_ids[] = { .data = &stm32_sai_comp_data_a}, }
Either approach works for me (or a revert for that matter).
Thanks for your advice, I was thoughtless.
I think change the date of STM_SAI_x_ID maybe simple. But if we don't change the id,
what about add a "#define" like the line 47:
#define STM_SAI_IS_SUB(x) ((x)->id == STM_SAI_A_ID || (x)->id == STM_SAI_B_ID)
then in the judgement, wu use:
sai->id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
if (!STM_SAI_IS_SUB(sai))
return -EINVAL;
if you think that's ok, I will send patch v2 for you .
If we allow null value in STM_SAI_IS_SUB(sai) check, we can miss real NULL pointer error from of_device_get_match_data().
The simplest way is to change STM_SAI_x_ID enums I think. But honnestly, I feel more comfortable to let the driver unchanged.
Oh，you are right, I am sorry.
Please forget this patch, I'm sorry to have wasted your time.
But I saw some codes is useless in the line 48 & line 49, I think we can remove it.
Yes, these two defines are no more useful. Feel free to send a cleanup patch.
BRs
Olivier
If you think so, I will send this patch for you.
Thanks
Tang Bin
BRs Olivier
Thanks
Tang Bin
participants (4)
-
Mark Brown -
Olivier MOYSAN -
Tang Bin -
tangbin