On 9/30/18 12:45 AM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
From: Vasily Khoruzhick anarsoul@gmail.com
Sleep gpio is optional, so it's possible to have reset gpio, but no sleep gpio. We shouldn't fail early in case of missing sleep gpio, otherwise we won't deassert reset.
Signed-off-by: Vasily Khoruzhick anarsoul@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Vagrant Cascadian vagrant@debian.org
drivers/video/bridge/video-bridge-uclass.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/video/bridge/video-bridge-uclass.c b/drivers/video/bridge/video-bridge-uclass.c index cd4959cc71..46936a0626 100644 --- a/drivers/video/bridge/video-bridge-uclass.c +++ b/drivers/video/bridge/video-bridge-uclass.c @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ int video_bridge_set_active(struct udevice *dev, bool active)
debug("%s: %d\n", __func__, active); ret = dm_gpio_set_value(&uc_priv->sleep, !active);
So if I get this correctly, uc_priv->sleep.dev would be NULL if there was no GPIO specified? So wouldn't it be cleaner to say: if (uc_priv->sleep.dev) { ret = dm_gpio_set_value(&uc_priv->sleep, !active); ...
- if (ret)
- if (ret != -ENOENT) return ret; if (active) { ret = dm_gpio_set_value(&uc_priv->reset, true);
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int video_bridge_set_active(struct udevice *dev, bool active) ret = dm_gpio_set_value(&uc_priv->reset, false); }
- return ret;
- return 0;
This would loose the return value from the last statement in the if clause. So what about negating this clause: if (!active) return 0; and change the rest accordingly?
Cheers, Andre.
}
UCLASS_DRIVER(video_bridge) = {