[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <493cdb11-72b7-4d03-b982-448451fd5824@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:06:35 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
"Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan)" <acelan.kao@...onical.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: Fix error code checking in spi_mem_exec_op()
On 3/13/24 12:34, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 3/13/24 12:29, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 13 2024, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/24 11:28, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 13 2024, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed Mar 13, 2024 at 6:10 PM CET, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>>> After commit cff49d58f57e ("spi: Unify error codes by replacing
>>>>>> -ENOTSUPP with
>>>>>> -EOPNOTSUPP"), our SPI NOR flashes would stop probing with the
>>>>>> following
>>>>>> visible in the kernel log:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ 2.196300] brcmstb_qspi f0440920.qspi: using bspi-mspi mode
>>>>>> [ 2.210295] spi-nor: probe of spi1.0 failed with error -95
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It turns out that the check in spi_mem_exec_op() was changed to check
>>>>>> for -ENOTSUPP (old error code) or -EOPNOTSUPP (new error code),
>>>>>> but this
>>>>>> means that for drivers that were converted, the second condition
>>>>>> is now
>>>>>> true, and we stop falling through like we used to. Fix the error to
>>>>>> check for neither error being neither -ENOTSUPP *nor* -EOPNOTSUPP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: cff49d58f57e ("spi: Unify error codes by replacing
>>>>>> -ENOTSUPP with -EOPNOTSUPP")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
>>>>>> Change-Id: I4159811f6c582c4de2143382473d2000b8755872
>>>>>
>>>>> Ha, thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW in next, there is commit
>>>>> e63aef9c9121e ("spi: spi-mem: add statistics support to ->exec_op()
>>>>> calls")
>>>>> that probably will conflict with this one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, - not for this patch - but with that logic, spi_mem_exec_op()
>>>>> might return EOPNOTSUPP *or* ENOTSUPP, even for drivers which might
>>>>> still return ENOTSUPP, because there is one condition in
>>>>> spi_mem_exec_op() which will always return EOPNOTSUPP. That is
>>>>> somewhat confusing, no?
>>>> I agree. I suppose it would be better to do:
>>>> if (!ret)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> if (ret == -ENOTSUPP || ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
>>>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>
>>>
>>> But with e63aef9c9121e ("spi: spi-mem: add statistics support to
>>> ->exec_op()
>>> calls") applied, would not that mean duplicating the statistics
>>> gathering, or
>>> were the statistics gathering only intended for when ret == 0?
>>
>> Hmm, I didn't properly understand this. Ignore my suggestion. Your patch
>> does the right thing.
>
> What I meant is that e63aef9c9121e will increment statistics not just
> when we return 0 from ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op, but also if we return
> -ENOTSUPP or -EOPNOTSUPP, and I am not sure if this is exactly what is
> intended. But this is somewhat orthogonal.
It looks like the handling of a non-zero return code will fall either in
the -ETIMEDOUT category, or in the general category of an error. I
suppose there is a question whether a operation that could not be
supported should fall in the "error" category.
--
Florian
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4221 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists