[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2d48c85-9cfe-41af-ac43-d61bb1be4dc3@suswa.mountain>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 16:06:39 +0200
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Dan Scally <dan.scally@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Bingbu Cao <bingbu.cao@...el.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] media: ipu-bridge: fix error code in ipu_bridge_init()
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:14:18AM +0100, Dan Scally wrote:
> Hello
>
> On 10/05/2024 16:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:43:31PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > Return -EINVAL if "bridge->n_sensors == 0". Don't return success.
> > LGTM, but I leave the main Q "Is it really the error case?" to the maintainers.
> > I would imagine the use case where either from the following may happen:
> > 1) the sensors are all new and not listed as supported;
> > 2) there no sensors connected for real.
> >
> > In both cases I don't see this as a critical error that we can't enumerate
> > the bridge itself.
> >
> I have no strong feelings on this really. The CIO2 driver, before the bridge
> was a thing, didn't treat a lack of connected endpoints as an error case and
> still completed probe if the cio2_parse_firmware() function doesn't find any
> connected endpoints...but perhaps it should have behaved this way all along.
> Is there value in having the cio2 device probed, but useless? I can't think
> of any at the moment.
>
>
> The patch contents themselves look good to me.
Let's just leave it as-is if everyone is happy with the current
behavior. When someone complains, we'll fix it.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists