Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:21:40 +0100
From:   Ladislav Michl <ladis@linux-mips.org>
To:     Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
Cc:     "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, letux-kernel@openphoenux.org,
        kernel@pyra-handheld.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] extcon: palmas: hide error messages if gpio returns
 -EPROBE_DEFER
Message-ID: <20200218102140.GA193069@lenoch>
References: <CGME20200217133832epcas1p329af393e88fa76189ca141d2534f9ad2@epcas1p3.samsung.com>
 <d5c2826a5f00fcaee62f00662ae2a44dc4a5395d.1581946695.git.hns@goldelico.com>
 <b2655a58-6541-a2c9-c44d-536e5cef1ee3@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b2655a58-6541-a2c9-c44d-536e5cef1ee3@samsung.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:28:25PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> On 2/17/20 10:38 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> > If the gpios are probed after this driver (e.g. if they
> > come from an i2c expander) there is no need to print an
> > error message.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c | 8 ++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c
> > index edc5016f46f1..cea58d0cb457 100644
> > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c
> > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c
> > @@ -205,14 +205,18 @@ static int palmas_usb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  
> >  	palmas_usb->id_gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "id",
> >  							GPIOD_IN);
> > -	if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) {
> > +	if (PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> > +		return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > +	} else if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) {
> >  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get id gpio\n");
> >  		return PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod);
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "vbus",
> >  							GPIOD_IN);
> > -	if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod)) {
> > +	if (PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> > +		return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > +	} else if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod)) {
> >  		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get vbus gpio\n");
> >  		return PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod);
> >  	}
> > 
> 
> I think that it is enough to handle the -EPROBE_DEFER.
> Also, I prefer to use single if/else statement 
> instead of the nested if/else statement.
> 
> Applied it.

Uh... As it is? Then it is matter of time it triggers someones cocci
script pointing to else after return. Could you at least fix this?

Thanks,
	ladis