[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <QwL-txKgshTDtkHPjQ1gnufO18a6waLR7e2WEVmJbo3T7s3xs6jW6vnbzhtOyyDpQHyDi7q7ObEDWCE_YV8KwrBGHZmsDA6LInznCqeFzj0=@protonmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 17:09:40 +0000
From: Barnabás Pőcze <pobrn@...tonmail.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: "Luke D. Jones" <luke@...nes.dev>, corentin.chary@...il.com,
mgross@...ux.intel.com, jdelvare@...e.com, linux@...ck-us.net,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] asus-wmi: Add dgpu disable method
Hi
2021. július 6., kedd 12:17 keltezéssel, Hans de Goede írta:
> [...]
> >> @@ -2699,6 +2792,10 @@ static int asus_wmi_add(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> if (err)
> >> goto fail_platform;
> >>
> >> + err = dgpu_disable_check_present(asus);
> >> + if (err)
> >> + goto fail_dgpu_disable;
> >> +
> >
> > Should this really be considered a "fatal" error?
>
> Well dgpu_disable_check_present() does already contain:
>
> if (err == -ENODEV)
> return 0;
>
> IOW it only returns an error on unexpected errors and asus_wmi_add()
> already contains a couple of other foo_present() checks which are
> dealt with in the same way, so this is consistent with that and
> being consistent is good, so I think this is fine.
>
Indeed, that's right, I missed that. I am still unsure whether any error
should cause it to fail to load. But I guess if there is precedent for that
in the module, then consistency is probably better.
Regards,
Barnabás Pőcze
Powered by blists - more mailing lists