If during probe fsl_lbc_ctrl_dev is NULL that might just be because the
fsl_lbc driver didn't bind yet. So return -EPROBE_DEFER in this case to
make the driver core retry probing later.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mtd/nand/raw/fsl_elbc_nand.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/fsl_elbc_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/fsl_elbc_nand.c
index 1e3a80f06f33..df6a0d5c86bb 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/fsl_elbc_nand.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/fsl_elbc_nand.c
@@ -869,7 +869,8 @@ static int fsl_elbc_nand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
struct mtd_info *mtd;
if (!fsl_lbc_ctrl_dev || !fsl_lbc_ctrl_dev->regs)
- return -ENODEV;
+ return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EPROBE_DEFER, "lbc_ctrl_dev missing\n");
+
lbc = fsl_lbc_ctrl_dev->regs;
dev = fsl_lbc_ctrl_dev->dev;
--
2.43.0
Hi Uwe,
[email protected] wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:07:08 +0100:
> If during probe fsl_lbc_ctrl_dev is NULL that might just be because the
> fsl_lbc driver didn't bind yet. So return -EPROBE_DEFER in this case to
> make the driver core retry probing later.
Despite the probable usefulness of this change, I don't see any
relationship with the current series. So unless there is a good reason
I might take this one through the nand tree.
Also, what about a Fixes/Cc: stable tag here?
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Miquèl
Hi Miqu?l,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 07:19:44PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> [email protected] wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:07:08 +0100:
>
> > If during probe fsl_lbc_ctrl_dev is NULL that might just be because the
> > fsl_lbc driver didn't bind yet. So return -EPROBE_DEFER in this case to
> > make the driver core retry probing later.
>
> Despite the probable usefulness of this change, I don't see any
> relationship with the current series. So unless there is a good reason
> I might take this one through the nand tree.
This patch indeed doesn't belong into this series. It just happend to be
in my tree and shuffled into the middle when I sorted the patches by
subsystem. Note I already sent it separately at
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/[email protected]
> Also, what about a Fixes/Cc: stable tag here?
The problem exists since
3ab8f2a2e701 ("P4080/eLBC: Make Freescale elbc interrupt common to elbc devices")
which was included in v2.6.37-rc1. At that time there was no
EPROBE_DEFER yet. I think I wouldn't add a Fixes: line for that, but
feel free to add one if you think there should be one.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |