[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1543045.tPZatK9yHU@z50>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 19:43:09 +0200
From: Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Krzysztof Halasa <khalasa@...p.pl>,
Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@...il.com>,
Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6 v2] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: use GPIO lookup table
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:05:00 AM CEST Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Janusz,
Hi Boris,
> On Sat, 26 May 2018 00:20:45 +0200
> Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Changes since v1:
> > - fix handling of devm_gpiod_get_optional() return values - thanks to
> > Andy Shevchenko.
>
> Can you put the changelog after the "---" separator so that it does not
> appear in the final commit message?
Yes, sure, sorry for that.
> > +err_gpiod:
> > + if (err == -ENODEV || err == -ENOENT)
> > + err = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>
> Hm, isn't it better to make gpiod_find() return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER)
> here [1]? At least, ENOENT should not be turned into EPROBE_DEFER,
> because it's returned when there's no entry matching the requested gpio
> in the lookup table, and deferring the probe won't solve this problem.
ENOENT is also returned when no matching lookup table is found. That may
happen if consumer dev_name stored in the table differs from dev_name assigned
to the consumer by its bus, the platform bus in this case. For that reason I
think the consumer dev_name should be initialized in the table after the
device is registered, when its actual dev_name can be obtained. If that device
registration happens after the driver is already registered, e.g., at
late_initcall, the device is probed before its lookup table is ready. For that
reason returning EPROBE_DEFER seems better to me even in the ENOENT case.
Thanks,
Janusz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists