On Wed, 30 May 2018 19:43:09 +0200 Janusz Krzysztofik <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:05:00 AM CEST Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Hi Janusz, > > Hi Boris, > > > On Sat, 26 May 2018 00:20:45 +0200 > > Janusz Krzysztofik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ... > > > Changes since v1: > > > - fix handling of devm_gpiod_get_optional() return values - thanks to > > > Andy Shevchenko. > > > > Can you put the changelog after the "---" separator so that it does not > > appear in the final commit message? > > Yes, sure, sorry for that. > > > > +err_gpiod: > > > + if (err == -ENODEV || err == -ENOENT) > > > + err = -EPROBE_DEFER; > > > > Hm, isn't it better to make gpiod_find() return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER) > > here [1]? At least, ENOENT should not be turned into EPROBE_DEFER, > > because it's returned when there's no entry matching the requested gpio > > in the lookup table, and deferring the probe won't solve this problem. > > ENOENT is also returned when no matching lookup table is found. That may > happen if consumer dev_name stored in the table differs from dev_name > assigned > to the consumer by its bus, the platform bus in this case. For that reason I > think the consumer dev_name should be initialized in the table after the > device is registered, when its actual dev_name can be obtained. If that > device > registration happens after the driver is already registered, e.g., at > late_initcall, the device is probed before its lookup table is ready. For > that > reason returning EPROBE_DEFER seems better to me even in the ENOENT case. Sorry, I don't get it. Aren't GPIO lookup tables supposed to be declared in board files, especially if the GPIO is used by a platform device? When would you have a lookup table registered later in the init/boot process?
