Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220819194336.382740-1-ahalaney@redhat.com> <YwATSglfJEgG6V73@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <YwATSglfJEgG6V73@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 16:03:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UWn8a9C3j0Ky9JWqo_2AvOE=ORVP94zHftGQLsxFdXyw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Clean up on enable failure
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, bmasney@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 3:48 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 02:43:36PM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote:
>
> > -     if (regulator->uA_load && regulator->enable_count == 1)
> > -             return drms_uA_update(rdev);
> > +     if (regulator->uA_load && regulator->enable_count == 1) {
> > +             ret = drms_uA_update(rdev);
>
> I am vaugely surprised and a bit concerned that drms_uA_update() can
> fail...

In his original email Andrew implied that his system was misconfigured
when he was seeing this error. I presume this isn't common which is
why nobody had noticed this before now, but given that the function
drms_uA_update() does return an error code it seems like we should
handle it properly in the caller.

-Doug