Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] PCI: uniphier: Add error message when failed to get phy | From | Kunihiko Hayashi <> | Date | Tue, 8 Sep 2020 01:09:12 +0900 |
| |
Hi Rob,
On 2020/09/04 7:25, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:05 AM Kunihiko Hayashi > <hayashi.kunihiko@socionext.com> wrote: >> >> On 2020/08/18 1:39, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:25 AM Kunihiko Hayashi >>> <hayashi.kunihiko@socionext.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Even if phy driver doesn't probe, the error message can't be distinguished >>>> from other errors. This displays error message caused by the phy driver >>>> explicitly. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@socionext.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c | 8 ++++++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c >>>> index 93ef608..7c8721e 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c >>>> @@ -489,8 +489,12 @@ static int uniphier_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> return PTR_ERR(priv->rst); >>>> >>>> priv->phy = devm_phy_optional_get(dev, "pcie-phy"); >>> >>> The point of the optional variant vs. devm_phy_get() is whether or not >>> you get an error message. So shouldn't you switch to devm_phy_get >>> instead? >>> >>>> - if (IS_ERR(priv->phy)) >>>> - return PTR_ERR(priv->phy); >>>> + if (IS_ERR(priv->phy)) { >>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->phy); >>>> + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) >>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get phy (%d)\n", ret); >>>> + return ret; >>>> + } >> >> The 'phys' property is optional, so if there isn't 'phys' in the PCIe node, >> devm_phy_get() returns -ENODEV, and devm_phy_optional_get() returns NULL. >> >> When devm_phy_optional_get() replaces devm_phy_get(), >> condition for displaying an error message changes to: >> >> (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER && ret != -ENODEV) >> >> This won't be simple, but should it be replaced? > > Nevermind. I was thinking we had some error prints for the optional > vs. non-optional variants. I understand. As long as this phy is "optional", this doesn't need to print error message. Once I cancel this patch, and leave the phy as "optional".
Thank you,
--- Best Regards Kunihiko Hayashi
| |