Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-178788-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 16:06:39 +0200
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To: Dan Scally <dan.scally@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Bingbu Cao <bingbu.cao@intel.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] media: ipu-bridge: fix error code in ipu_bridge_init()
Message-ID: <f2d48c85-9cfe-41af-ac43-d61bb1be4dc3@suswa.mountain>
References: <f468c4ac-0629-41b5-b5d1-e26f70e44800@moroto.mountain>
 <Zj5DZ4ORVfeCZSsV@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <3ba30852-cb50-497e-8968-a29d0b9a1986@ideasonboard.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3ba30852-cb50-497e-8968-a29d0b9a1986@ideasonboard.com>

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:14:18AM +0100, Dan Scally wrote:
> Hello
> 
> On 10/05/2024 16:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:43:31PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > Return -EINVAL if "bridge->n_sensors == 0".  Don't return success.
> > LGTM, but I leave the main Q "Is it really the error case?" to the maintainers.
> > I would imagine the use case where either from the following may happen:
> > 1) the sensors are all new and not listed as supported;
> > 2) there no sensors connected for real.
> > 
> > In both cases I don't see this as a critical error that we can't enumerate
> > the bridge itself.
> > 
> I have no strong feelings on this really. The CIO2 driver, before the bridge
> was a thing, didn't treat a lack of connected endpoints as an error case and
> still completed probe if the cio2_parse_firmware() function doesn't find any
> connected endpoints...but perhaps it should have behaved this way all along.
> Is there value in having the cio2 device probed, but useless? I can't think
> of any at the moment.
> 
> 
> The patch contents themselves look good to me.

Let's just leave it as-is if everyone is happy with the current
behavior.  When someone complains, we'll fix it.

regards,
dan carpenter