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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] extcon: palmas: hide error messages if gpio returns
 -EPROBE_DEFER
To:     "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, letux-kernel@openphoenux.org,
        kernel@pyra-handheld.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
From:   Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
Organization: Samsung Electronics
Message-ID: <4b147484-42f2-1e21-9e19-36cc696cef5e@samsung.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:13:12 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:59.0) Gecko/20100101
        Thunderbird/59.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C3D9F783-EE45-4681-93D9-C1407284CB59@goldelico.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CMS-TYPE: 101P
DLP-Filter: Pass
References: <d5c2826a5f00fcaee62f00662ae2a44dc4a5395d.1581946695.git.hns@goldelico.com>
        <CGME20200217135826epcas1p1bd80a3e497ec65c5e715c9f352c4d660@epcas1p1.samsung.com>
        <C3D9F783-EE45-4681-93D9-C1407284CB59@goldelico.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2/17/20 10:58 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> 
>> Am 17.02.2020 um 14:38 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com>:
>>
>> 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)) {
> 
> Hm.
> 
> While looking again at that: why do we need the "{" and "} else "?
> 
> It should be sufficient to have
> 
>> 	palmas_usb->id_gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "id",
>> 							GPIOD_IN);
>> +	if (PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> +		return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>> 	if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) {
> 
> What do you think is better coding style here?

I think that my suggestion is better because 'if' and 'else if'
check the error state of same 'palmas_usb->id_gpiod' variable.

If 'if' and 'else if' checks the different variable,
your suggestion is better.


-- 
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics