Re: HID: Introduce hidpp, a module to handle Logitech hid++ devices
From: Benjamin Tissoires <hidden>
Date: 2014-10-31 13:55:56
Hi Dan, On Oct 31 2014 or thereabouts, Dan Carpenter wrote:
Hello Benjamin Tissoires,
The patch 2f31c5252910: "HID: Introduce hidpp, a module to handle
Logitech hid++ devices" from Sep 30, 2014, leads to the following
static checker warning:
drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c:359 hidpp_root_get_protocol_version()
warn: should this return really be negated?
drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
342 static int hidpp_root_get_protocol_version(struct hidpp_device *hidpp)
343 {
344 struct hidpp_report response;
345 int ret;
346
347 ret = hidpp_send_fap_command_sync(hidpp,
348 HIDPP_PAGE_ROOT_IDX,
349 CMD_ROOT_GET_PROTOCOL_VERSION,
350 NULL, 0, &response);
351
352 if (ret == 1) {
^^^^^^^^
What does the "1" mean? Magic numbers are bad, yada yada yada.Indeed. It should be HIDPP_ERROR_INVALID_SUBID.
353 hidpp->protocol_major = 1;
354 hidpp->protocol_minor = 0;
355 return 0;
356 }
357
358 if (ret)
359 return -ret;
^^^^^^^^^^^
This is wrong. The real problem is that hidpp_send_fap_command_sync()
mixes normal and custom error codes. The callers are inconsistent in
how they deal with it.Yep :/ So, to sum up, positive errors are errors handled by the protocol. Negative ones are the normal error codes. I guess if the error is positive, we should drop an hid_err in the syslog and convert it into -EPROTO.
360 361 hidpp->protocol_major = response.fap.params[0]; 362 hidpp->protocol_minor = response.fap.params[1]; 363 364 return ret; 365 } See also: drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c:398 hidpp_devicenametype_get_count() warn: should this return really be negated? drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c:417 hidpp_devicenametype_get_device_name() warn: should this return really be negated? drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c:524 hidpp_touchpad_get_raw_info() warn: should this return really be negated?
Same will apply for these 3 others negated err. Thanks for the reports! Cheers, Benjamin