Commit f66529f9 authored by Simon Glass's avatar Simon Glass
Browse files

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: default avatarSimon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
parent 4f60166c
......@@ -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);
}
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment