2024-01-25 14:54:26

by Tudor Ambarus

Subject: [PATCH v2 13/28] spi: s3c64xx: propagate the dma_submit_error() error code

Propagate the dma_submit_error() error code, don't overwrite it.

Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
---
drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
index 48b87c5e2dd2..25d642f99278 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ static int prepare_dma(struct s3c64xx_spi_dma_data *dma,
ret = dma_submit_error(dma->cookie);
if (ret) {
dev_err(&sdd->pdev->dev, "DMA submission failed");
- return -EIO;
+ return ret;
}

dma_async_issue_pending(dma->ch);
--
2.43.0.429.g432eaa2c6b-goog

2024-01-26 09:03:19

by Tudor Ambarus

Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/28] spi: s3c64xx: propagate the dma_submit_error() error code

On 1/25/24 20:23, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:50 AM Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Propagate the dma_submit_error() error code, don't overwrite it.
>
> But why? What would be the benefit over -EIO

I'd like to see why dma submit fail rather than "oh, it's an EIO".
DMA submit should just add the dma descriptor to a queue, without firing
it, thus EIO looks very wrong here, and it's misleading.

>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
>> index 48b87c5e2dd2..25d642f99278 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
>> @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ static int prepare_dma(struct s3c64xx_spi_dma_data *dma,
>> ret = dma_submit_error(dma->cookie);
>> if (ret) {
>> dev_err(&sdd->pdev->dev, "DMA submission failed");
>> - return -EIO;
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> dma_async_issue_pending(dma->ch);
>> --
>> 2.43.0.429.g432eaa2c6b-goog
>>