* Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: stm32: fix probe error case
@ 2019-11-11 22:04 ` Bjorn Andersson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Bjorn Andersson @ 2019-11-11 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabien Dessenne
Cc: Maxime Coquelin, Alexandre Torgue, Ohad Ben-Cohen, linux-stm32,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, linux-remoteproc, Loic Pallardy,
Arnaud Pouliquen
On Mon 07 Oct 00:39 PDT 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
> If the rproc driver is probed before the mailbox driver and if the rproc
> Device Tree node has some mailbox properties, the rproc driver probe
> shall be deferred instead of being probed without mailbox support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@st.com>
> ---
> Changes since v1: test IS_ERR() before checking PTR_ERR()
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> index 2cf4b29..a507332 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static const struct stm32_mbox stm32_rproc_mbox[MBOX_NB_MBX] = {
> }
> };
>
> -static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> +static int stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> {
> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> @@ -329,10 +329,14 @@ static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
>
> ddata->mb[i].chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, name);
> if (IS_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan)) {
> + if (PTR_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
If for some reason you get EPROBE_DEFER when i > 0 you need to
mbox_free_channel() channels [0..i) before returning.
Regards,
Bjorn
> dev_warn(dev, "cannot get %s mbox\n", name);
> ddata->mb[i].chan = NULL;
> }
> }
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int stm32_rproc_set_hold_boot(struct rproc *rproc, bool hold)
> @@ -596,7 +600,9 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (ret)
> goto free_rproc;
>
> - stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> + ret = stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> + if (ret)
> + goto free_rproc;
>
> ret = rproc_add(rproc);
> if (ret)
> --
> 2.7.4
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: stm32: fix probe error case
@ 2019-11-11 22:04 ` Bjorn Andersson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Bjorn Andersson @ 2019-11-11 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabien Dessenne
Cc: Maxime Coquelin, Alexandre Torgue, Ohad Ben-Cohen, linux-stm32,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, linux-remoteproc, Loic Pallardy,
Arnaud Pouliquen
On Mon 07 Oct 00:39 PDT 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
> If the rproc driver is probed before the mailbox driver and if the rproc
> Device Tree node has some mailbox properties, the rproc driver probe
> shall be deferred instead of being probed without mailbox support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@st.com>
> ---
> Changes since v1: test IS_ERR() before checking PTR_ERR()
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> index 2cf4b29..a507332 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static const struct stm32_mbox stm32_rproc_mbox[MBOX_NB_MBX] = {
> }
> };
>
> -static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> +static int stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> {
> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> @@ -329,10 +329,14 @@ static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
>
> ddata->mb[i].chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, name);
> if (IS_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan)) {
> + if (PTR_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
If for some reason you get EPROBE_DEFER when i > 0 you need to
mbox_free_channel() channels [0..i) before returning.
Regards,
Bjorn
> dev_warn(dev, "cannot get %s mbox\n", name);
> ddata->mb[i].chan = NULL;
> }
> }
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int stm32_rproc_set_hold_boot(struct rproc *rproc, bool hold)
> @@ -596,7 +600,9 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (ret)
> goto free_rproc;
>
> - stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> + ret = stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> + if (ret)
> + goto free_rproc;
>
> ret = rproc_add(rproc);
> if (ret)
> --
> 2.7.4
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: stm32: fix probe error case
2019-11-11 22:04 ` Bjorn Andersson
@ 2019-11-12 14:09 ` Fabien DESSENNE
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Fabien DESSENNE @ 2019-11-12 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Andersson
Cc: Maxime Coquelin, Alexandre TORGUE, Ohad Ben-Cohen,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
Loic PALLARDY, Arnaud POULIQUEN
Hi Bjorn,
On 11/11/2019 11:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 00:39 PDT 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
>
>> If the rproc driver is probed before the mailbox driver and if the rproc
>> Device Tree node has some mailbox properties, the rproc driver probe
>> shall be deferred instead of being probed without mailbox support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@st.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v1: test IS_ERR() before checking PTR_ERR()
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 10 ++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>> index 2cf4b29..a507332 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static const struct stm32_mbox stm32_rproc_mbox[MBOX_NB_MBX] = {
>> }
>> };
>>
>> -static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
>> +static int stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
>> {
>> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
>> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>> @@ -329,10 +329,14 @@ static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
>>
>> ddata->mb[i].chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, name);
>> if (IS_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan)) {
>> + if (PTR_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> If for some reason you get EPROBE_DEFER when i > 0 you need to
> mbox_free_channel() channels [0..i) before returning.
The mailbox framework returns EPROBE_DIFFER to inform that the mailbox
provider has not registered yet. I do not expected to have a success
followed by a EPROBE_DEFER error.
But in the very special case where we use two different mailbox
providers this may happen.
I will send an updated version, thanks for pointing this.
BR
Fabien
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
>> dev_warn(dev, "cannot get %s mbox\n", name);
>> ddata->mb[i].chan = NULL;
>> }
>> }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static int stm32_rproc_set_hold_boot(struct rproc *rproc, bool hold)
>> @@ -596,7 +600,9 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (ret)
>> goto free_rproc;
>>
>> - stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
>> + ret = stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto free_rproc;
>>
>> ret = rproc_add(rproc);
>> if (ret)
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: stm32: fix probe error case
@ 2019-11-12 14:09 ` Fabien DESSENNE
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Fabien DESSENNE @ 2019-11-12 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Andersson
Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen, Alexandre TORGUE, Loic PALLARDY, Arnaud POULIQUEN,
linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Maxime Coquelin, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Hi Bjorn,
On 11/11/2019 11:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 00:39 PDT 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
>
>> If the rproc driver is probed before the mailbox driver and if the rproc
>> Device Tree node has some mailbox properties, the rproc driver probe
>> shall be deferred instead of being probed without mailbox support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@st.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v1: test IS_ERR() before checking PTR_ERR()
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 10 ++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>> index 2cf4b29..a507332 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static const struct stm32_mbox stm32_rproc_mbox[MBOX_NB_MBX] = {
>> }
>> };
>>
>> -static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
>> +static int stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
>> {
>> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
>> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>> @@ -329,10 +329,14 @@ static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
>>
>> ddata->mb[i].chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, name);
>> if (IS_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan)) {
>> + if (PTR_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> If for some reason you get EPROBE_DEFER when i > 0 you need to
> mbox_free_channel() channels [0..i) before returning.
The mailbox framework returns EPROBE_DIFFER to inform that the mailbox
provider has not registered yet. I do not expected to have a success
followed by a EPROBE_DEFER error.
But in the very special case where we use two different mailbox
providers this may happen.
I will send an updated version, thanks for pointing this.
BR
Fabien
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
>> dev_warn(dev, "cannot get %s mbox\n", name);
>> ddata->mb[i].chan = NULL;
>> }
>> }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static int stm32_rproc_set_hold_boot(struct rproc *rproc, bool hold)
>> @@ -596,7 +600,9 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (ret)
>> goto free_rproc;
>>
>> - stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
>> + ret = stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto free_rproc;
>>
>> ret = rproc_add(rproc);
>> if (ret)
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: stm32: fix probe error case
2019-11-12 14:09 ` Fabien DESSENNE
(?)
@ 2019-11-12 18:22 ` Bjorn Andersson
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Bjorn Andersson @ 2019-11-12 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabien DESSENNE
Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen, Alexandre TORGUE, Loic PALLARDY, Arnaud POULIQUEN,
linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Maxime Coquelin, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
On Tue 12 Nov 06:09 PST 2019, Fabien DESSENNE wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
>
> On 11/11/2019 11:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 00:39 PDT 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
> >
> >> If the rproc driver is probed before the mailbox driver and if the rproc
> >> Device Tree node has some mailbox properties, the rproc driver probe
> >> shall be deferred instead of being probed without mailbox support.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@st.com>
> >> ---
> >> Changes since v1: test IS_ERR() before checking PTR_ERR()
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 10 ++++++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> index 2cf4b29..a507332 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static const struct stm32_mbox stm32_rproc_mbox[MBOX_NB_MBX] = {
> >> }
> >> };
> >>
> >> -static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> +static int stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> {
> >> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
> >> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> >> @@ -329,10 +329,14 @@ static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>
> >> ddata->mb[i].chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, name);
> >> if (IS_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan)) {
> >> + if (PTR_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> >> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > If for some reason you get EPROBE_DEFER when i > 0 you need to
> > mbox_free_channel() channels [0..i) before returning.
>
> The mailbox framework returns EPROBE_DIFFER to inform that the mailbox
> provider has not registered yet. I do not expected to have a success
> followed by a EPROBE_DEFER error.
>
> But in the very special case where we use two different mailbox
> providers this may happen.
>
I agree, it's unlikely to ever cause any problems...
> I will send an updated version, thanks for pointing this.
>
I appreciate that.
Thanks,
Bjorn
> BR
>
> Fabien
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bjorn
> >
> >> dev_warn(dev, "cannot get %s mbox\n", name);
> >> ddata->mb[i].chan = NULL;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> static int stm32_rproc_set_hold_boot(struct rproc *rproc, bool hold)
> >> @@ -596,7 +600,9 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> if (ret)
> >> goto free_rproc;
> >>
> >> - stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> >> + ret = stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + goto free_rproc;
> >>
> >> ret = rproc_add(rproc);
> >> if (ret)
> >> --
> >> 2.7.4
> >>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: stm32: fix probe error case
@ 2019-11-12 18:22 ` Bjorn Andersson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Bjorn Andersson @ 2019-11-12 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabien DESSENNE
Cc: Maxime Coquelin, Alexandre TORGUE, Ohad Ben-Cohen,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
Loic PALLARDY, Arnaud POULIQUEN
On Tue 12 Nov 06:09 PST 2019, Fabien DESSENNE wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
>
> On 11/11/2019 11:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 00:39 PDT 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
> >
> >> If the rproc driver is probed before the mailbox driver and if the rproc
> >> Device Tree node has some mailbox properties, the rproc driver probe
> >> shall be deferred instead of being probed without mailbox support.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@st.com>
> >> ---
> >> Changes since v1: test IS_ERR() before checking PTR_ERR()
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 10 ++++++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> index 2cf4b29..a507332 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static const struct stm32_mbox stm32_rproc_mbox[MBOX_NB_MBX] = {
> >> }
> >> };
> >>
> >> -static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> +static int stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> {
> >> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
> >> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> >> @@ -329,10 +329,14 @@ static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>
> >> ddata->mb[i].chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, name);
> >> if (IS_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan)) {
> >> + if (PTR_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> >> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > If for some reason you get EPROBE_DEFER when i > 0 you need to
> > mbox_free_channel() channels [0..i) before returning.
>
> The mailbox framework returns EPROBE_DIFFER to inform that the mailbox
> provider has not registered yet. I do not expected to have a success
> followed by a EPROBE_DEFER error.
>
> But in the very special case where we use two different mailbox
> providers this may happen.
>
I agree, it's unlikely to ever cause any problems...
> I will send an updated version, thanks for pointing this.
>
I appreciate that.
Thanks,
Bjorn
> BR
>
> Fabien
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bjorn
> >
> >> dev_warn(dev, "cannot get %s mbox\n", name);
> >> ddata->mb[i].chan = NULL;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> static int stm32_rproc_set_hold_boot(struct rproc *rproc, bool hold)
> >> @@ -596,7 +600,9 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> if (ret)
> >> goto free_rproc;
> >>
> >> - stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> >> + ret = stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + goto free_rproc;
> >>
> >> ret = rproc_add(rproc);
> >> if (ret)
> >> --
> >> 2.7.4
> >>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: stm32: fix probe error case
@ 2019-11-12 18:22 ` Bjorn Andersson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Bjorn Andersson @ 2019-11-12 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fabien DESSENNE
Cc: Maxime Coquelin, Alexandre TORGUE, Ohad Ben-Cohen,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
Loic PALLARDY, Arnaud POULIQUEN
On Tue 12 Nov 06:09 PST 2019, Fabien DESSENNE wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
>
> On 11/11/2019 11:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 00:39 PDT 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
> >
> >> If the rproc driver is probed before the mailbox driver and if the rproc
> >> Device Tree node has some mailbox properties, the rproc driver probe
> >> shall be deferred instead of being probed without mailbox support.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@st.com>
> >> ---
> >> Changes since v1: test IS_ERR() before checking PTR_ERR()
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 10 ++++++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> index 2cf4b29..a507332 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
> >> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static const struct stm32_mbox stm32_rproc_mbox[MBOX_NB_MBX] = {
> >> }
> >> };
> >>
> >> -static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> +static int stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> {
> >> struct stm32_rproc *ddata = rproc->priv;
> >> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> >> @@ -329,10 +329,14 @@ static void stm32_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>
> >> ddata->mb[i].chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, name);
> >> if (IS_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan)) {
> >> + if (PTR_ERR(ddata->mb[i].chan) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> >> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > If for some reason you get EPROBE_DEFER when i > 0 you need to
> > mbox_free_channel() channels [0..i) before returning.
>
> The mailbox framework returns EPROBE_DIFFER to inform that the mailbox
> provider has not registered yet. I do not expected to have a success
> followed by a EPROBE_DEFER error.
>
> But in the very special case where we use two different mailbox
> providers this may happen.
>
I agree, it's unlikely to ever cause any problems...
> I will send an updated version, thanks for pointing this.
>
I appreciate that.
Thanks,
Bjorn
> BR
>
> Fabien
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bjorn
> >
> >> dev_warn(dev, "cannot get %s mbox\n", name);
> >> ddata->mb[i].chan = NULL;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> static int stm32_rproc_set_hold_boot(struct rproc *rproc, bool hold)
> >> @@ -596,7 +600,9 @@ static int stm32_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> if (ret)
> >> goto free_rproc;
> >>
> >> - stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> >> + ret = stm32_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + goto free_rproc;
> >>
> >> ret = rproc_add(rproc);
> >> if (ret)
> >> --
> >> 2.7.4
> >>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread