Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc_probe()
> If the function "platform_get_irq()" failed, the negative value
> returned will not be detected here, including "-EPROBE_DEFER",
I suggest to adjust this change description.
Wording alternative:
The negative return value (which could eventually be “-EPROBE_DEFER”)
will not be detected here from a failed call of the function
“platform_get_irq”.
> which causes the application to fail to get the correct error message.
Will another fine-tuning become relevant also for this wording?
> Thus it must be fixed.
Wording alternative:
Thus adjust the error detection and corresponding exception handling.
> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin
> Signed-off-by: Shengju Zhang
How do you think about to add the tags “Fixes”, “Link” and “Reported-by”?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=c0cc271173b2e1c2d8d0ceaef14e4dfa79eefc0d#n584
usb: gadget: fsl_udc_core: Checking for a failed platform_get_irq() call in
fsl_udc_probe()
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/36341bb1-1e00-5eb1-d032-60dcc614d...@web.de/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/8/442
…
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c
> @@ -2441,8 +2441,8 @@ static int fsl_udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> udc_controller->max_ep = (dccparams & DCCPARAMS_DEN_MASK) * 2;
>
> udc_controller->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> - if (!udc_controller->irq) {
> - ret = -ENODEV;
> + if (udc_controller->irq <= 0) {
Will such a failure predicate need any more clarification?
How does this check fit to the current software documentation?
> + ret = udc_controller->irq ? : -ENODEV;
Will it be clearer to specify values for all cases in such a conditional
operator
(instead of leaving one case empty)?
Regards,
Markus
Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc_probe()
Hi Markus
On 2020/4/10 15:33, Markus Elfring wrote:
If the function "platform_get_irq()" failed, the negative value
returned will not be detected here, including "-EPROBE_DEFER",
I suggest to adjust this change description.
Wording alternative:
The negative return value (which could eventually be “-EPROBE_DEFER”)
will not be detected here from a failed call of the function
“platform_get_irq”.
Hardware experiments show that the negative return value is not just
"-EPROBE_DEFER".
which causes the application to fail to get the correct error message.
Will another fine-tuning become relevant also for this wording?
Maybe that's not quite accurate.
Thus it must be fixed.
Wording alternative:
Thus adjust the error detection and corresponding exception handling.
Got it.
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin
Signed-off-by: Shengju Zhang
How do you think about to add the tags “Fixes”, “Link” and “Reported-by”?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=c0cc271173b2e1c2d8d0ceaef14e4dfa79eefc0d#n584
usb: gadget: fsl_udc_core: Checking for a failed platform_get_irq() call in
fsl_udc_probe()
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/36341bb1-1e00-5eb1-d032-60dcc614d...@web.de/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/8/442
…
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c
@@ -2441,8 +2441,8 @@ static int fsl_udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
udc_controller->max_ep = (dccparams & DCCPARAMS_DEN_MASK) * 2;
udc_controller->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
- if (!udc_controller->irq) {
- ret = -ENODEV;
+ if (udc_controller->irq <= 0) {
Will such a failure predicate need any more clarification?
How does this check fit to the current software documentation?
Maybe my tags are not suitable.
+ ret = udc_controller->irq ? : -ENODEV;
Will it be clearer to specify values for all cases in such a conditional
operator
(instead of leaving one case empty)?
I don't know what you mean of "instead of leaving one case empty". But
by experiment, "ret = udc_controller->irq ? : -ENODEV" or "ret =
udc_controller->irq < 0 ? udc_controller->irq : -ENODEV" should be
suitable here.
Thank you for your guidance.
Tang Bin
Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc_probe()
Hello!
On 10.04.2020 4:58, Tang Bin wrote:
If the function "platform_get_irq()" failed, the negative value
returned will not be detected here, including "-EPROBE_DEFER", which
causes the application to fail to get the correct error message.
Thus it must be fixed.
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin
Signed-off-by: Shengju Zhang
---
drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c
b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c
index ec6eda426..60853ad10 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c
@@ -2441,8 +2441,8 @@ static int fsl_udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
udc_controller->max_ep = (dccparams & DCCPARAMS_DEN_MASK) * 2;
udc_controller->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
- if (!udc_controller->irq) {
This check has always been wrong, doesn't account for real errors and
probe deferral...
- ret = -ENODEV;
+ if (udc_controller->irq <= 0) {
Note that platfrom_get_irq() no longer returns 0 on error.
+ ret = udc_controller->irq ? : -ENODEV;
goto err_iounmap;
}
MBR, Sergei
Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc_probe()
On 10.04.2020 4:58, Tang Bin wrote: If the function "platform_get_irq()" failed, the negative value returned will not be detected here, including "-EPROBE_DEFER", which causes the application to fail to get the correct error message. Thus it must be fixed. platform_get_irq() prints an appropriate error message, the problem is that the current code calls request_irq() with error code instead of IRQ. Signed-off-by: Tang Bin Signed-off-by: Shengju Zhang [...] MBR, Sergei
Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc_probe()
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 04:05:06PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote: > > > > > > > Thus it must be fixed. > > Wording alternative: > >Thus adjust the error detection and corresponding exception handling. > > Got it. Wow... No, don't listen to Markus when it comes to writing commit messages. You couldn't find worse advice anywhere. :P regards, dan carpenter
Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc_probe()
Hi On 2020/4/14 16:30, Dan Carpenter wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 04:05:06PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote: Thus it must be fixed. Wording alternative: Thus adjust the error detection and corresponding exception handling. Got it. Wow... No, don't listen to Markus when it comes to writing commit messages. You couldn't find worse advice anywhere. :P I'm actively waiting for a reply from the maintainer. Thank you very much. Tang Bin
Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl: Fix a wrong judgment in fsl_udc_probe()
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:13 AM Tang Bin wrote: > > Hi > > On 2020/4/14 16:30, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 04:05:06PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote: > >>> > Thus it must be fixed. > >>> Wording alternative: > >>> Thus adjust the error detection and corresponding exception handling. > >> Got it. > > Wow... > > > > No, don't listen to Markus when it comes to writing commit messages. > > You couldn't find worse advice anywhere. :P > > I'm actively waiting for a reply from the maintainer. Thank you very much. Sorry for the late response. Acked-by: Li Yang Regards, Leo
