All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>
Cc: hans.verkuil@cisco.com, mchehab@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com,
	patrice.chotard@st.com, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
	benjamin.gaignard@st.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [media] cec: Move capability check inside #if
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170404130157.cgzmuym5yixvcy22@dell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170404125409.ay5yszwdkdxb6nvx@dell>

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017, Lee Jones wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Apr 2017, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> 
> > On 04/04/2017 02:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > If CONFIG_RC_CORE is not enabled then none of the RC code will be
> > > executed anyway, so we're placing the capability check inside the
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c b/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
> > > index 37217e2..06a312c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
> > > @@ -234,10 +234,10 @@ struct cec_adapter *cec_allocate_adapter(const struct cec_adap_ops *ops,
> > >  		return ERR_PTR(res);
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
> > >  	if (!(caps & CEC_CAP_RC))
> > >  		return adap;
> > >  
> > > -#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
> > >  	/* Prepare the RC input device */
> > >  	adap->rc = rc_allocate_device(RC_DRIVER_SCANCODE);
> > >  	if (!adap->rc) {
> > > 
> > 
> > Not true, there is an #else further down.
> 
> I saw the #else.  It's inert code that becomes function-less.
> 
> > That said, this code is clearly a bit confusing.
> > 
> > It would be better if at the beginning of the function we'd have this:
> > 
> > #if !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
> > 	caps &= ~CEC_CAP_RC;
> > #endif
> > 
> > and then drop the #else bit and (as you do in this patch) move the #if up.
> > 
> > Can you make a new patch for this?
> 
> Sure.

No wait, sorry!  This patch is the correct fix.

'caps' is already indicating !CEC_CAP_RC, which is right.

What we're trying to do here is only consider looking at the
capabilities if the RC Core is enabled.  If it is not enabled, the #if
still does the right thing and makes sure that the caps are updated.

Please take another look at the semantics.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [media] cec: Move capability check inside #if
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170404130157.cgzmuym5yixvcy22@dell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170404125409.ay5yszwdkdxb6nvx@dell>

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017, Lee Jones wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Apr 2017, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> 
> > On 04/04/2017 02:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > If CONFIG_RC_CORE is not enabled then none of the RC code will be
> > > executed anyway, so we're placing the capability check inside the
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c b/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
> > > index 37217e2..06a312c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
> > > @@ -234,10 +234,10 @@ struct cec_adapter *cec_allocate_adapter(const struct cec_adap_ops *ops,
> > >  		return ERR_PTR(res);
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
> > >  	if (!(caps & CEC_CAP_RC))
> > >  		return adap;
> > >  
> > > -#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
> > >  	/* Prepare the RC input device */
> > >  	adap->rc = rc_allocate_device(RC_DRIVER_SCANCODE);
> > >  	if (!adap->rc) {
> > > 
> > 
> > Not true, there is an #else further down.
> 
> I saw the #else.  It's inert code that becomes function-less.
> 
> > That said, this code is clearly a bit confusing.
> > 
> > It would be better if at the beginning of the function we'd have this:
> > 
> > #if !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)
> > 	caps &= ~CEC_CAP_RC;
> > #endif
> > 
> > and then drop the #else bit and (as you do in this patch) move the #if up.
> > 
> > Can you make a new patch for this?
> 
> Sure.

No wait, sorry!  This patch is the correct fix.

'caps' is already indicating !CEC_CAP_RC, which is right.

What we're trying to do here is only consider looking at the
capabilities if the RC Core is enabled.  If it is not enabled, the #if
still does the right thing and makes sure that the caps are updated.

Please take another look at the semantics.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-04-04 13:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-04 12:32 [PATCH 1/2] [media] cec: Move capability check inside #if Lee Jones
2017-04-04 12:32 ` Lee Jones
2017-04-04 12:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] [media] cec: Fix runtime BUG when (CONFIG_RC_CORE && !CEC_CAP_RC) Lee Jones
2017-04-04 12:32   ` Lee Jones
2017-04-04 12:41   ` Hans Verkuil
2017-04-04 12:41     ` Hans Verkuil
2017-04-04 12:55     ` Lee Jones
2017-04-04 12:55       ` Lee Jones
2017-04-04 12:39 ` [PATCH 1/2] [media] cec: Move capability check inside #if Hans Verkuil
2017-04-04 12:39   ` Hans Verkuil
2017-04-04 12:54   ` Lee Jones
2017-04-04 12:54     ` Lee Jones
2017-04-04 12:58     ` Hans Verkuil
2017-04-04 12:58       ` Hans Verkuil
2017-04-04 13:01     ` Lee Jones [this message]
2017-04-04 13:01       ` Lee Jones
2017-04-04 13:14       ` Hans Verkuil
2017-04-04 13:14         ` Hans Verkuil
2017-04-04 13:30         ` Lee Jones
2017-04-04 13:30           ` Lee Jones

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170404130157.cgzmuym5yixvcy22@dell \
    --to=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=benjamin.gaignard@st.com \
    --cc=hans.verkuil@cisco.com \
    --cc=hverkuil@xs4all.nl \
    --cc=kernel@stlinux.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
    --cc=patrice.chotard@st.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.