dm: core: Correct bug introduced in uclass_first/next_device()
These functions now rely on uclass_find_first/next_device() and assume that they will either return failure (-ve error code) or a device. In fact, coming to the end of a list is not considered failure and they return 0 in that case. The logic to deal with this was replaced in commit acb9ca2a with just using uclass_get_device_tail(). Add back the missing logic. This bug was caught by unit tests but since they were broken for other reasons at the time, this was not noticed. Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
4f60166c90
commit
f66529f998
@ -277,6 +277,7 @@ int uclass_get_device_tail(struct udevice *dev, int ret,
|
||||
if (ret)
|
||||
return ret;
|
||||
|
||||
assert(dev);
|
||||
ret = device_probe(dev);
|
||||
if (ret)
|
||||
return ret;
|
||||
@ -342,6 +343,8 @@ int uclass_first_device(enum uclass_id id, struct udevice **devp)
|
||||
|
||||
*devp = NULL;
|
||||
ret = uclass_find_first_device(id, &dev);
|
||||
if (!dev)
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
return uclass_get_device_tail(dev, ret, devp);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -352,6 +355,8 @@ int uclass_next_device(struct udevice **devp)
|
||||
|
||||
*devp = NULL;
|
||||
ret = uclass_find_next_device(&dev);
|
||||
if (!dev)
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
return uclass_get_device_tail(dev, ret, devp);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user