[PATCH RFC 06/11] staging: vchiq_arm: Register a platform device for audio

[dan.carpenter@oracle.com (Dan Carpenter)]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:09:31AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 05:29:30PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > Following Eric's commit 37b7b3087a2f ("staging/vc04_services: Register a
> > platform device for the camera driver.") this register the audio driver as
> > a platform device, too.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > index 778a252..fc6388b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > @@ -170,6 +170,7 @@ static struct class  *vchiq_class;
> >  static struct device *vchiq_dev;
> >  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(msg_queue_spinlock);
> >  static struct platform_device *bcm2835_camera;
> > +static struct platform_device *bcm2835_audio;
> >  
> >  static struct vchiq_drvdata bcm2835_drvdata = {
> >  	.cache_line_size = 32,
> > @@ -3670,6 +3671,7 @@ static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  		MAJOR(vchiq_devid), MINOR(vchiq_devid));
> >  
> >  	bcm2835_camera = vchiq_register_child(pdev, "bcm2835-camera");
> > +	bcm2835_audio = vchiq_register_child(pdev, "bcm2835_audio");
> 
> Same thing.  Check here and not in the remove function.
> 

Never mind.  I see what you're doing now that you have both camera and
audio.  You want it to still load even if one is not present.  That's
fine.

I am slightly uncomfortable just leaving error pointers lying around.
It might be nicer to just do:

	bcm2835_camera = vchiq_register_child(pdev, "bcm2835-camera");
	if (IS_ERR(bcm2835_camera)) {
		dev_err(pdev, "bcm2835-camera not registered.\n");
		bcm2835_camera = NULL;
	}

In that case NULL becomes a special case of success.  The unregister
functions accept NULL pointers so they wouldn't need to be changed.

Btw, if these had been normal patch instead of RFC we would have just
applied them and I wouldn't have complained.  But since you're
deliberately requesting comments anyway, then ...

regards,
dan carpenter