linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: rockchip: Convert to use dev_err

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]

Message-ID: <b4daf694-1188-a8f6-615f-7e416cef9be0@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 22:14:49 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     zhaoxiao <zhaoxiao@...ontech.com>, thierry.reding@...il.com,
        heiko@...ech.de
Cc:     u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: rockchip: Convert to use dev_err_probe()

Le 18/08/2022 à 09:55, zhaoxiao a écrit :
> It's fine to call dev_err_probe() in ->probe() when error code is known.
> Convert the driver to use dev_err_probe().
> 
> Signed-off-by: zhaoxiao <zhaoxiao@...ontech.com>
> ---
>   v2: remove the %d in the message.
Hi,

You did more than that.

> 
>   drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 10 +++-------
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> index f3647b317152..c6e088c1a6bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> @@ -330,16 +330,12 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   
>   	if (IS_ERR(pc->pclk)) {
>   		ret = PTR_ERR(pc->pclk);
> -		if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> -			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't get APB clk: %d\n", ret);
> -		return ret;
> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Can't get APB clk\n");
>   	}

You could use PTR_ERR(pc->pclk) directly. There is no need to assign it 
to 'ret'. This would simplify even further the code. ({} can be removed)


>   
>   	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
> -	if (ret) {
> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare enable PWM clk: %d\n", ret);
> -		return ret;
> -	}
> +	if (ret)
> +		dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Can't prepare enable PWM clk\n");

Is a 'return' before dev_err_probe() missing?

Before we were returning the error code, now we ignore it and continue.
If done on purpose, you should explain why in the commit log.


>   
>   	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->pclk);
>   	if (ret) {

Why just converting 2 dev_err() and leaving the other one in the probe 
untouched?

CJ