Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: sai: Use of_device_get_match_data()tosimplify code

[tangbin]

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