linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] drm/tegra: sor: Don't warn on probe deferral

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Nov 2020 19:12:07 +0000
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
CC:     David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] drm/tegra: sor: Don't warn on probe deferral


On 04/11/2020 10:49, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 04.11.2020 12:23, Jon Hunter пишет:
>> Deferred probe is an expected return value for tegra_output_probe().
>> Given that the driver deals with it properly, there's no need to output
>> a warning that may potentially confuse users.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes since V1:
>> - This time, I actually validated it!
>>
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/sor.c | 7 +++----
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/sor.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/sor.c
>> index e88a17c2937f..898a80ca37fa 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/sor.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/sor.c
>> @@ -3764,10 +3764,9 @@ static int tegra_sor_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  		return err;
>>  
>>  	err = tegra_output_probe(&sor->output);
>> -	if (err < 0) {
>> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to probe output: %d\n", err);
>> -		return err;
>> -	}
>> +	if (err < 0)
>> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, err,
>> +				     "failed to probe output: %d\n", err);
> 
> Hello Jon,
> 
> There is no need to duplicate the error code in the message [1]. Perhaps
> worth making a v3? :)
Indeed! Thanks for catching. Trying to do to many things at the same
time. I should have learned by now!

Jon

-- 
nvpublic