On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 02:01:33PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 02:06:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:49:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

-	struct device *dev = ctlr->dev.parent;
-
-	/* Chipselects are numbered 0..max; validate. */
-	if (spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0) >= ctlr->num_chipselect) {
-		dev_err(dev, "cs%d >= max %d\n", spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0),
-			ctlr->num_chipselect);
-		return -EINVAL;
-	}
-
-	/* Set the bus ID string */
-	spi_dev_set_name(spi);

I see that this is duplicating spi_add_device() (and we really could do
better with code sharing there I think) but I can't immediately see
where the duplication that's intended to be elimiated is here - where
else in the one call path that spi_add_device_locked() has would we do
the above?  Based on the changelog I was expecting to see some
duplicated code in the function itself.

Oh, by some reason Sebastian wasn't in this rather long Cc list.
Added him.

Reading again I don't see any useful explanation why that piece of code has to
be duplicated among these two functions. It's 100% a copy.

Sebastian, can you shed some light here?

The patch in this thread is obviously wrong. It results in the
checks never beeing called for spi_add_device_locked(). The copy is
in spi_add_device() and those two are not calling into each other.

Ah, now I see, I missed __ in the name.
Thank you for opening my eyes!

But it should be fine to move the code to the start of
__spi_add_device(), which allows removing the duplication. In that
case the code will be run with the add_lock held, which is probably
what I was worried about two years ago. Looking at it again, the
lock is held anyways in case of spi_add_device_locked().

Right, I will re-do that.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko