Re: [PATCH 04/20] pinctrl: Record a pin owner, not mux function, whenrequesting pins

[Linus Walleij]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Linus Walleij wrote at Monday, February 20, 2012 2:15 PM:
>> >
>> > -       if (!function) {
>> > -               dev_err(pctldev->dev, "no function name given\n");
>> > -               return -EINVAL;
>> > -       }
>> > -
>>
>> Why should it be allowed to have a NULL owner? There is a
>> debug print involving it above but ... maybe this is over-cautious?
>
> My reasoning was that this is an internal function, so this isn't a user-
> supplied parameter we need to be paranoid about checking, and the places
> that call this function internally "obviously" don't pass NULL owner.
> Well, I suppose one place relies on the fact we checked elsewhere that
> map->dev_name != NULL.
>
> Still, I can see a defensive programming argument for keeping that check,
> although I suspect if we apply that argument we should probably check a
> lot more things too throughout the code?

Bah whatever, no big deal.

Patch applied!

Thanks,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/