[PATCH 05/15] pcmcia: cleanup pccard_validate_cis()
Dominik Brodowski
linux at dominikbrodowski.net
Wed Jan 6 06:46:16 EST 2010
Cleanup pccard_validate_cis() and make it return an error code on
all failures, not merely on some failures.
Signed-off-by: Dominik Brodowski <linux at dominikbrodowski.net>
---
drivers/pcmcia/cistpl.c | 155 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pcmcia/cistpl.c b/drivers/pcmcia/cistpl.c
index 41ec772..04bf1ba 100644
--- a/drivers/pcmcia/cistpl.c
+++ b/drivers/pcmcia/cistpl.c
@@ -1577,88 +1577,95 @@ next_entry:
EXPORT_SYMBOL(pccard_loop_tuple);
-/*======================================================================
-
- This tries to determine if a card has a sensible CIS. It returns
- the number of tuples in the CIS, or 0 if the CIS looks bad. The
- checks include making sure several critical tuples are present and
- valid; seeing if the total number of tuples is reasonable; and
- looking for tuples that use reserved codes.
-
-======================================================================*/
-
+/**
+ * pccard_validate_cis() - check whether card has a sensible CIS
+ * @s: the struct pcmcia_socket we are to check
+ * @info: returns the number of tuples in the (valid) CIS, or 0
+ *
+ * This tries to determine if a card has a sensible CIS. In @info, it
+ * returns the number of tuples in the CIS, or 0 if the CIS looks bad. The
+ * checks include making sure several critical tuples are present and
+ * valid; seeing if the total number of tuples is reasonable; and
+ * looking for tuples that use reserved codes.
+ *
+ * The function returns 0 on success.
+ */
int pccard_validate_cis(struct pcmcia_socket *s, unsigned int *info)
{
- tuple_t *tuple;
- cisparse_t *p;
- unsigned int count = 0;
- int ret, reserved, dev_ok = 0, ident_ok = 0;
+ tuple_t *tuple;
+ cisparse_t *p;
+ unsigned int count = 0;
+ int ret, reserved, dev_ok = 0, ident_ok = 0;
- if (!s)
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (!s)
+ return -EINVAL;
- /* We do not want to validate the CIS cache... */
- destroy_cis_cache(s);
+ /* We do not want to validate the CIS cache... */
+ destroy_cis_cache(s);
- tuple = kmalloc(sizeof(*tuple), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (tuple == NULL) {
- dev_printk(KERN_WARNING, &s->dev, "no memory to validate CIS\n");
- return -ENOMEM;
- }
- p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (p == NULL) {
- kfree(tuple);
- dev_printk(KERN_WARNING, &s->dev, "no memory to validate CIS\n");
- return -ENOMEM;
- }
+ tuple = kmalloc(sizeof(*tuple), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (tuple == NULL) {
+ dev_warn(&s->dev, "no memory to validate CIS\n");
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (p == NULL) {
+ kfree(tuple);
+ dev_warn(&s->dev, "no memory to validate CIS\n");
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
- count = reserved = 0;
- tuple->DesiredTuple = RETURN_FIRST_TUPLE;
- tuple->Attributes = TUPLE_RETURN_COMMON;
- ret = pccard_get_first_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, tuple);
- if (ret != 0)
- goto done;
-
- /* First tuple should be DEVICE; we should really have either that
- or a CFTABLE_ENTRY of some sort */
- if ((tuple->TupleCode == CISTPL_DEVICE) ||
- (pccard_read_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, CISTPL_CFTABLE_ENTRY, p) == 0) ||
- (pccard_read_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, CISTPL_CFTABLE_ENTRY_CB, p) == 0))
- dev_ok++;
-
- /* All cards should have a MANFID tuple, and/or a VERS_1 or VERS_2
- tuple, for card identification. Certain old D-Link and Linksys
- cards have only a broken VERS_2 tuple; hence the bogus test. */
- if ((pccard_read_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, CISTPL_MANFID, p) == 0) ||
- (pccard_read_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, CISTPL_VERS_1, p) == 0) ||
- (pccard_read_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, CISTPL_VERS_2, p) != -ENOSPC))
- ident_ok++;
-
- if (!dev_ok && !ident_ok)
- goto done;
-
- for (count = 1; count < MAX_TUPLES; count++) {
- ret = pccard_get_next_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, tuple);
+ count = reserved = 0;
+ tuple->DesiredTuple = RETURN_FIRST_TUPLE;
+ tuple->Attributes = TUPLE_RETURN_COMMON;
+ ret = pccard_get_first_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, tuple);
if (ret != 0)
- break;
- if (((tuple->TupleCode > 0x23) && (tuple->TupleCode < 0x40)) ||
- ((tuple->TupleCode > 0x47) && (tuple->TupleCode < 0x80)) ||
- ((tuple->TupleCode > 0x90) && (tuple->TupleCode < 0xff)))
- reserved++;
- }
- if ((count == MAX_TUPLES) || (reserved > 5) ||
- ((!dev_ok || !ident_ok) && (count > 10)))
- count = 0;
+ goto done;
+
+ /* First tuple should be DEVICE; we should really have either that
+ or a CFTABLE_ENTRY of some sort */
+ if ((tuple->TupleCode == CISTPL_DEVICE) ||
+ (!pccard_read_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, CISTPL_CFTABLE_ENTRY, p)) ||
+ (!pccard_read_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, CISTPL_CFTABLE_ENTRY_CB, p)))
+ dev_ok++;
+
+ /* All cards should have a MANFID tuple, and/or a VERS_1 or VERS_2
+ tuple, for card identification. Certain old D-Link and Linksys
+ cards have only a broken VERS_2 tuple; hence the bogus test. */
+ if ((pccard_read_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, CISTPL_MANFID, p) == 0) ||
+ (pccard_read_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, CISTPL_VERS_1, p) == 0) ||
+ (pccard_read_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, CISTPL_VERS_2, p) != -ENOSPC))
+ ident_ok++;
+
+ if (!dev_ok && !ident_ok)
+ goto done;
+
+ for (count = 1; count < MAX_TUPLES; count++) {
+ ret = pccard_get_next_tuple(s, BIND_FN_ALL, tuple);
+ if (ret != 0)
+ break;
+ if (((tuple->TupleCode > 0x23) && (tuple->TupleCode < 0x40)) ||
+ ((tuple->TupleCode > 0x47) && (tuple->TupleCode < 0x80)) ||
+ ((tuple->TupleCode > 0x90) && (tuple->TupleCode < 0xff)))
+ reserved++;
+ }
+ if ((count == MAX_TUPLES) || (reserved > 5) ||
+ ((!dev_ok || !ident_ok) && (count > 10)))
+ count = 0;
+
+ ret = 0;
done:
- /* invalidate CIS cache on failure */
- if (!dev_ok || !ident_ok || !count)
- destroy_cis_cache(s);
-
- if (info)
- *info = count;
- kfree(tuple);
- kfree(p);
- return 0;
+ /* invalidate CIS cache on failure */
+ if (!dev_ok || !ident_ok || !count) {
+ destroy_cis_cache(s);
+ ret = -EIO;
+ }
+
+ if (info)
+ *info = count;
+ kfree(tuple);
+ kfree(p);
+ return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(pccard_validate_cis);
--
1.6.3.3
More information about the linux-pcmcia
mailing list