[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221026173519.bm22im7uov6b4nnp@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 19:35:19 +0200
From: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
To: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
Cc: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
Shawn Tu <shawnx.tu@...el.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] media: i2c: ov5645: Don't return early on
failures for s_stream(0)
On 22-10-26, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 6:17 PM Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Prabhakar,
> >
> > thanks for the patch, please see below my comments.
> >
> > On 22-10-26, Prabhakar wrote:
> > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
> > >
> > > Make sure we dont stop the code flow in case of errors while stopping
> > > the stream and return the error code of the first error case if any.
> > >
> > > v4l2-core takes care of warning the user so no need to add a warning
> > > message in the driver.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2->v3
> > > * Now propagating the first error code in case of failure.
> > >
> > > v1->v2
> > > * New patch
> > > ---
> > > drivers/media/i2c/ov5645.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov5645.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov5645.c
> > > index eea3067ddc8b..5702a55607fc 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov5645.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov5645.c
> > > @@ -996,17 +996,22 @@ static int ov5645_s_stream(struct v4l2_subdev *subdev, int enable)
> > > if (ret < 0)
> > > goto err_rpm_put;
> > > } else {
> > > + int stream_off_ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > ret = ov5645_write_reg(ov5645, OV5645_IO_MIPI_CTRL00, 0x40);
> >
> > If this write failed..
> >
> > > if (ret < 0)
> > > - return ret;
> > > + stream_off_ret = ret;
> > >
> > > ret = ov5645_write_reg(ov5645, OV5645_SYSTEM_CTRL0,
> > > OV5645_SYSTEM_CTRL0_STOP);
> >
> > why should this write be successful?
> >
> Indeed that will fail unless I have a lucky day ;-)
>
> But it seemed to be an overkill for adding an additional check to see
> if the previous write succeeded. Do you think this will create an
> issue?
Why not just say?
ret = ov5645_write_reg();
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
...
out:
dev_pm_xxx();
return ret;
Regards,
Marco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists