Message ID | 20250203185421.3383805-2-robh@kernel.org |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Commit | d02dfd4ceb2e9f34caaaaf87105267e2f722f443 |
Headers | show |
Series | phy: can-transceiver: Drop unnecessary "mux-states" property presence check | expand |
On Mon, 03 Feb 2025 12:54:21 -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > It doesn't matter whether "mux-states" is not present or there is some > other issue parsing it causing an error. Drop the presence check and > rework the error handling to ignore anything other than deferred probe. > > Applied, thanks! [1/1] phy: can-transceiver: Drop unnecessary "mux-states" property presence check commit: d02dfd4ceb2e9f34caaaaf87105267e2f722f443 Best regards,
Hi Rob, On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 19:55, Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > It doesn't matter whether "mux-states" is not present or there is some > other issue parsing it causing an error. Drop the presence check and > rework the error handling to ignore anything other than deferred probe. > > Acked-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org> > --- > Now a warning in v6.14-rc1, so please apply for 6.14. > > v2: > - Use brackets on else clause Thanks for your patch, which is now commit d02dfd4ceb2e9f34 ("phy: can-transceiver: Drop unnecessary "mux-states" property presence check") in phy/next (next-20250212 and later). I have bisected the following error during boot on the Gray Hawk Single and White Hawk development boards: can-transceiver-phy can-phy0: /can-phy0: failed to get mux-state (0) > --- a/drivers/phy/phy-can-transceiver.c > +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-can-transceiver.c > @@ -113,13 +114,11 @@ static int can_transceiver_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > match = of_match_node(can_transceiver_phy_ids, pdev->dev.of_node); > drvdata = match->data; > > - if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "mux-states")) { > - struct mux_state *mux_state; > - > - mux_state = devm_mux_state_get(dev, NULL); > - if (IS_ERR(mux_state)) > - return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(mux_state), > - "failed to get mux\n"); > + mux_state = devm_mux_state_get(dev, NULL); If the (optional) "mux-states" property is not present, mux_get() prints an error message, and returns -ENOENT.... > + if (IS_ERR(mux_state)) { > + if (PTR_ERR(mux_state) == -EPROBE_DEFER) > + return PTR_ERR(mux_state); ... which is ignored here, so in the end all is good. Still, it is confusing to erroneously print an error message. > + } else { > can_transceiver_phy->mux_state = mux_state; > } Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-can-transceiver.c b/drivers/phy/phy-can-transceiver.c index ee4ce4249698..2bec70615449 100644 --- a/drivers/phy/phy-can-transceiver.c +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-can-transceiver.c @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ static int can_transceiver_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct phy *phy; struct gpio_desc *standby_gpio; struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio; + struct mux_state *mux_state; u32 max_bitrate = 0; int err; @@ -113,13 +114,11 @@ static int can_transceiver_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) match = of_match_node(can_transceiver_phy_ids, pdev->dev.of_node); drvdata = match->data; - if (of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "mux-states")) { - struct mux_state *mux_state; - - mux_state = devm_mux_state_get(dev, NULL); - if (IS_ERR(mux_state)) - return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(mux_state), - "failed to get mux\n"); + mux_state = devm_mux_state_get(dev, NULL); + if (IS_ERR(mux_state)) { + if (PTR_ERR(mux_state) == -EPROBE_DEFER) + return PTR_ERR(mux_state); + } else { can_transceiver_phy->mux_state = mux_state; }