* [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement @ 2020-04-08 11:59 Tang Bin 2020-04-13 11:32 ` Corey Minyard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Tang Bin @ 2020-04-08 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: minyard, arnd, gregkh; +Cc: openipmi-developer, linux-kernel, Tang Bin bt_bmc_probe() is only called with an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check that the passed in device is NULL or that it has an openfirmware node. Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> --- Changes from v2: - improve the commit message. Changes from v1: - improve the commit message. --- drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c index d36aeacb2..890ad55aa 100644 --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c @@ -430,9 +430,6 @@ static int bt_bmc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct device *dev; int rc; - if (!pdev || !pdev->dev.of_node) - return -ENODEV; - dev = &pdev->dev; dev_info(dev, "Found bt bmc device\n"); -- 2.20.1.windows.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement 2020-04-08 11:59 [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement Tang Bin @ 2020-04-13 11:32 ` Corey Minyard 2020-04-13 11:56 ` Tang Bin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Corey Minyard @ 2020-04-13 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tang Bin; +Cc: arnd, gregkh, openipmi-developer, linux-kernel On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 07:59:58PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote: > bt_bmc_probe() is only called with an openfirmware platform device. > Therefore there is no need to check that the passed in device is NULL or > that it has an openfirmware node. I waited until after the merge window closed, this is queued for 5.8. I changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check". "Judgement", although technically correct, has a legal or moral connotation. Thanks, -corey > > Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> > --- > Changes from v2: > - improve the commit message. > > Changes from v1: > - improve the commit message. > --- > drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c > index d36aeacb2..890ad55aa 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c > @@ -430,9 +430,6 @@ static int bt_bmc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > struct device *dev; > int rc; > > - if (!pdev || !pdev->dev.of_node) > - return -ENODEV; > - > dev = &pdev->dev; > dev_info(dev, "Found bt bmc device\n"); > > -- > 2.20.1.windows.1 > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement 2020-04-13 11:32 ` Corey Minyard @ 2020-04-13 11:56 ` Tang Bin 2020-04-13 14:23 ` Corey Minyard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Tang Bin @ 2020-04-13 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: minyard; +Cc: arnd, gregkh, openipmi-developer, linux-kernel Hi, Corey: On 2020/4/13 19:32, Corey Minyard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 07:59:58PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote: >> bt_bmc_probe() is only called with an openfirmware platform device. >> Therefore there is no need to check that the passed in device is NULL or >> that it has an openfirmware node. > I waited until after the merge window closed, this is queued for 5.8. Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8? > I > changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check". You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch? > "Judgement", > although technically correct, has a legal or moral connotation. I'm sorry, I won't use that word again. Thanks for your instruction. Tang Bin > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement 2020-04-13 11:56 ` Tang Bin @ 2020-04-13 14:23 ` Corey Minyard 2020-04-13 15:44 ` Tang Bin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Corey Minyard @ 2020-04-13 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tang Bin; +Cc: arnd, gregkh, openipmi-developer, linux-kernel On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 07:56:44PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote: > Hi, Corey: > > On 2020/4/13 19:32, Corey Minyard wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 07:59:58PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote: > > > bt_bmc_probe() is only called with an openfirmware platform device. > > > Therefore there is no need to check that the passed in device is NULL or > > > that it has an openfirmware node. > > I waited until after the merge window closed, this is queued for 5.8. > Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8? It's in my queue, so that's the plan. > > I > > changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check". > You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch? Correct. > > "Judgement", > > although technically correct, has a legal or moral connotation. > > I'm sorry, I won't use that word again. It's not a problem. English is a language with a lot of things like this. -corey > > > Thanks for your instruction. > > Tang Bin > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement 2020-04-13 14:23 ` Corey Minyard @ 2020-04-13 15:44 ` Tang Bin 2020-04-13 21:59 ` Corey Minyard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Tang Bin @ 2020-04-13 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: minyard; +Cc: arnd, gregkh, openipmi-developer, linux-kernel Hi Corey: On 2020/4/13 22:23, Corey Minyard wrote: >> Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8? > It's in my queue, so that's the plan. > >>> I >>> changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check". >> You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch? > Correct. Thank you very much, I am waiting for the applied. Then, I have some questions to ask you: I have checked the file bt-bmc.c carefully, and found that there are another two problems.Please help me analyze them, if you think it is feasible, then I will submit the patch. Q1: About Format Problem In the 469~471 line, the first letter should be indented, please check if the writing here is reasonable? Q2: About the function bt_bmc_config_irq() 1)In the function bt_bmc_probe(), the return value of bt_bmc_config_irq() made no judgement, whether it is suitable? (If your view is don't need to judge, the following will change.) 2)According to the kernel interface of platform_get_irq(),the return value is negative, if (!bt_bmc->irq) return -ENODEV; so the check here is invalid.The standard way to write is: if (bt_bmc->irq < 0) return bt_bmc->irq; But consider if failed, "bt_bmc->irq" must be assigned to "0",the easiest way is to delete the 403~404 line, handled directly by the function devm_request_irq(). Q3:About dev_warm() KERN_WARNING is higher than KERN_INFO, the same to dev_warn() and dev_info(). When the function bt_bmc_probe() uses dev_info() to print error message, the dev_warm() in the line of 409 should be redundant. I am waiting for your replay, and thank you for your guidance. Tang Bin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement 2020-04-13 15:44 ` Tang Bin @ 2020-04-13 21:59 ` Corey Minyard 2020-04-14 9:42 ` Tang Bin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Corey Minyard @ 2020-04-13 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tang Bin; +Cc: arnd, gregkh, openipmi-developer, linux-kernel On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 11:44:49PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote: > Hi Corey: > > On 2020/4/13 22:23, Corey Minyard wrote: > > > Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8? > > It's in my queue, so that's the plan. > > > > > > I > > > > changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check". > > > You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch? > > Correct. > > Thank you very much, I am waiting for the applied. > > > Then, I have some questions to ask you: > > I have checked the file bt-bmc.c carefully, and found that there are > another two problems.Please help me analyze them, if you think it is > feasible, then I will submit the patch. > > Q1: About Format Problem > > In the 469~471 line, the first letter should be indented, please > check if the writing here is reasonable? > I'm not sure how that happened. It was that way from the original submitter and nobody noticed in review. It's obviously wrong. > > Q2: About the function bt_bmc_config_irq() > > 1)In the function bt_bmc_probe(), the return value of > bt_bmc_config_irq() made no judgement, whether it is suitable? (If your > view is don't need to judge, the following will change.) > Hmm, that's probably not a big deal. If it fails irqs are just not used. It probably shouldn't return a value, though. > > 2)According to the kernel interface of platform_get_irq(),the > return value is negative, > > if (!bt_bmc->irq) > return -ENODEV; > > so the check here is invalid.The standard way to write is: > > if (bt_bmc->irq < 0) > return bt_bmc->irq; > > But consider if failed, "bt_bmc->irq" must be assigned to > "0",the easiest way is to delete the 403~404 line, handled directly > by the function devm_request_irq(). The problem you point out is real, the check should be < 0. You don't want it handled by devm_request_irq, that could result in logs that are invalid. Also, it should use platform_get_irq_optional() to avoid a spurrious log when there is no irq. > > > Q3:About dev_warm() > > KERN_WARNING is higher than KERN_INFO, the same to > dev_warn() and dev_info(). When the function bt_bmc_probe() uses dev_info() > to print error message, the dev_warm() in the line of 409 should be > redundant. That is all correct as it is. If there is an irq specified and it can't be requested, that is a problem. If there is no irq specified, that is fine, just info is good. Thanks, -corey > > > I am waiting for your replay, and thank you for your guidance. > > Tang Bin > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement 2020-04-13 21:59 ` Corey Minyard @ 2020-04-14 9:42 ` Tang Bin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Tang Bin @ 2020-04-14 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: minyard; +Cc: arnd, gregkh, openipmi-developer, linux-kernel Hi Corey: On 2020/4/14 5:59, Corey Minyard wrote: > That is all correct as it is. If there is an irq specified and it can't > be requested, that is a problem. If there is no irq specified, that is > fine, just info is good. Okay, I know what you mean, and I will submit the corresponding patch tonight according to the questions I raised. Thanks, Tang Bin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-04-14 9:40 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-04-08 11:59 [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement Tang Bin 2020-04-13 11:32 ` Corey Minyard 2020-04-13 11:56 ` Tang Bin 2020-04-13 14:23 ` Corey Minyard 2020-04-13 15:44 ` Tang Bin 2020-04-13 21:59 ` Corey Minyard 2020-04-14 9:42 ` Tang Bin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).