[PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator fault in .remove()

[PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator fault in .remove()

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Returning a non-zero value in an i2c remove callback results in the i2c
core emitting a very generic error message ("remove failed (-ESOMETHING),
will be ignored") and as the message indicates not further error handling
is done.

Instead emit a more specific error message and then return zero in
.remove().

The long-term goal is to make the i2c remove prototype return void, making
all implementations return 0 is preparatory work for this change.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
 drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
index e095a3930142..16631c675f2f 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
@@ -392,17 +392,21 @@ static int stmfx_chip_init(struct i2c_client *client)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static int stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
+static void stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
 	struct stmfx *stmfx = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
 
 	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN, 0);
 	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
 
-	if (stmfx->vdd)
-		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
+	if (stmfx->vdd) {
+		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
 
-	return 0;
+		if (ret)
+			dev_err(&client->dev,
+				"Failed to disable vdd regulator: %pe\n",
+				ERR_PTR(ret));
+	}
 }
 
 static int stmfx_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
@@ -466,7 +470,9 @@ static int stmfx_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
 	stmfx_irq_exit(client);
 
-	return stmfx_chip_exit(client);
+	stmfx_chip_exit(client);
+
+	return 0;
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP

base-commit: dcb85f85fa6f142aae1fe86f399d4503d49f2b60
-- 
2.34.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator fault in .remove()

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Returning a non-zero value in an i2c remove callback results in the i2c
core emitting a very generic error message ("remove failed (-ESOMETHING),
will be ignored") and as the message indicates not further error handling
is done.

Instead emit a more specific error message and then return zero in
.remove().

The long-term goal is to make the i2c remove prototype return void, making
all implementations return 0 is preparatory work for this change.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
 drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
index e095a3930142..16631c675f2f 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
@@ -392,17 +392,21 @@ static int stmfx_chip_init(struct i2c_client *client)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static int stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
+static void stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
 	struct stmfx *stmfx = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
 
 	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN, 0);
 	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
 
-	if (stmfx->vdd)
-		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
+	if (stmfx->vdd) {
+		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
 
-	return 0;
+		if (ret)
+			dev_err(&client->dev,
+				"Failed to disable vdd regulator: %pe\n",
+				ERR_PTR(ret));
+	}
 }
 
 static int stmfx_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
@@ -466,7 +470,9 @@ static int stmfx_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
 	stmfx_irq_exit(client);
 
-	return stmfx_chip_exit(client);
+	stmfx_chip_exit(client);
+
+	return 0;
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP

base-commit: dcb85f85fa6f142aae1fe86f399d4503d49f2b60
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator fault in .remove()

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> Returning a non-zero value in an i2c remove callback results in the i2c
> core emitting a very generic error message ("remove failed (-ESOMETHING),
> will be ignored") and as the message indicates not further error handling
> is done.
> 
> Instead emit a more specific error message and then return zero in
> .remove().
> 
> The long-term goal is to make the i2c remove prototype return void, making
> all implementations return 0 is preparatory work for this change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> index e095a3930142..16631c675f2f 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> @@ -392,17 +392,21 @@ static int stmfx_chip_init(struct i2c_client *client)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -static int stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> +static void stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
>  {
>  	struct stmfx *stmfx = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>  
>  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN, 0);
>  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
>  
> -	if (stmfx->vdd)
> -		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> +	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> +		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
>  
> -	return 0;
> +		if (ret)

Nit: Premise of the patch is fine, but please can you use the standard
function call, check the return value format please.  Something about
this is triggering my OCD! :)

     	int ret;

	ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
	if (ret)
		do_thing();

> +			dev_err(&client->dev,
> +				"Failed to disable vdd regulator: %pe\n",
> +				ERR_PTR(ret));
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static int stmfx_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> @@ -466,7 +470,9 @@ static int stmfx_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>  {
>  	stmfx_irq_exit(client);
>  
> -	return stmfx_chip_exit(client);
> +	stmfx_chip_exit(client);
> +
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> 
> base-commit: dcb85f85fa6f142aae1fe86f399d4503d49f2b60

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator fault in .remove()

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> Returning a non-zero value in an i2c remove callback results in the i2c
> core emitting a very generic error message ("remove failed (-ESOMETHING),
> will be ignored") and as the message indicates not further error handling
> is done.
> 
> Instead emit a more specific error message and then return zero in
> .remove().
> 
> The long-term goal is to make the i2c remove prototype return void, making
> all implementations return 0 is preparatory work for this change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> index e095a3930142..16631c675f2f 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> @@ -392,17 +392,21 @@ static int stmfx_chip_init(struct i2c_client *client)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -static int stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> +static void stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
>  {
>  	struct stmfx *stmfx = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>  
>  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN, 0);
>  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
>  
> -	if (stmfx->vdd)
> -		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> +	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> +		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
>  
> -	return 0;
> +		if (ret)

Nit: Premise of the patch is fine, but please can you use the standard
function call, check the return value format please.  Something about
this is triggering my OCD! :)

     	int ret;

	ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
	if (ret)
		do_thing();

> +			dev_err(&client->dev,
> +				"Failed to disable vdd regulator: %pe\n",
> +				ERR_PTR(ret));
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static int stmfx_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> @@ -466,7 +470,9 @@ static int stmfx_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>  {
>  	stmfx_irq_exit(client);
>  
> -	return stmfx_chip_exit(client);
> +	stmfx_chip_exit(client);
> +
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> 
> base-commit: dcb85f85fa6f142aae1fe86f399d4503d49f2b60

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator fault in .remove()

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2332 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:46:37PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 
> > Returning a non-zero value in an i2c remove callback results in the i2c
> > core emitting a very generic error message ("remove failed (-ESOMETHING),
> > will be ignored") and as the message indicates not further error handling
> > is done.
> > 
> > Instead emit a more specific error message and then return zero in
> > .remove().
> > 
> > The long-term goal is to make the i2c remove prototype return void, making
> > all implementations return 0 is preparatory work for this change.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > index e095a3930142..16631c675f2f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > @@ -392,17 +392,21 @@ static int stmfx_chip_init(struct i2c_client *client)
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> > +static void stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> >  {
> >  	struct stmfx *stmfx = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> >  
> >  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN, 0);
> >  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
> >  
> > -	if (stmfx->vdd)
> > -		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > +	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> > +		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> >  
> > -	return 0;
> > +		if (ret)
> 
> Nit: Premise of the patch is fine, but please can you use the standard
> function call, check the return value format please.  Something about
> this is triggering my OCD! :)
> 
>      	int ret;
> 
> 	ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> 	if (ret)
> 		do_thing();

Not sure I understand you correctly. Do you want just:

 	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
 
 	if (stmfx->vdd) {
-		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
+		int ret;
+
+		ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
 		if (ret)
 ...

squashed into the patch?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator fault in .remove()

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2332 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:46:37PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 
> > Returning a non-zero value in an i2c remove callback results in the i2c
> > core emitting a very generic error message ("remove failed (-ESOMETHING),
> > will be ignored") and as the message indicates not further error handling
> > is done.
> > 
> > Instead emit a more specific error message and then return zero in
> > .remove().
> > 
> > The long-term goal is to make the i2c remove prototype return void, making
> > all implementations return 0 is preparatory work for this change.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > index e095a3930142..16631c675f2f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > @@ -392,17 +392,21 @@ static int stmfx_chip_init(struct i2c_client *client)
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> > +static void stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> >  {
> >  	struct stmfx *stmfx = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> >  
> >  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN, 0);
> >  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
> >  
> > -	if (stmfx->vdd)
> > -		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > +	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> > +		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> >  
> > -	return 0;
> > +		if (ret)
> 
> Nit: Premise of the patch is fine, but please can you use the standard
> function call, check the return value format please.  Something about
> this is triggering my OCD! :)
> 
>      	int ret;
> 
> 	ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> 	if (ret)
> 		do_thing();

Not sure I understand you correctly. Do you want just:

 	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
 
 	if (stmfx->vdd) {
-		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
+		int ret;
+
+		ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
 		if (ret)
 ...

squashed into the patch?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator fault in .remove()

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:46:37PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Feb 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > 
> > > Returning a non-zero value in an i2c remove callback results in the i2c
> > > core emitting a very generic error message ("remove failed (-ESOMETHING),
> > > will be ignored") and as the message indicates not further error handling
> > > is done.
> > > 
> > > Instead emit a more specific error message and then return zero in
> > > .remove().
> > > 
> > > The long-term goal is to make the i2c remove prototype return void, making
> > > all implementations return 0 is preparatory work for this change.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > > index e095a3930142..16631c675f2f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > > @@ -392,17 +392,21 @@ static int stmfx_chip_init(struct i2c_client *client)
> > >  	return ret;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static int stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> > > +static void stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct stmfx *stmfx = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > >  
> > >  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN, 0);
> > >  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
> > >  
> > > -	if (stmfx->vdd)
> > > -		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > > +	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> > > +		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > >  
> > > -	return 0;
> > > +		if (ret)
> > 
> > Nit: Premise of the patch is fine, but please can you use the standard
> > function call, check the return value format please.  Something about
> > this is triggering my OCD! :)
> > 
> >      	int ret;
> > 
> > 	ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > 	if (ret)
> > 		do_thing();
> 
> Not sure I understand you correctly. Do you want just:
> 
>  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
>  
>  	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> -		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> +		int ret;
> +
> +		ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
>  		if (ret)
>  ...
> 
> squashed into the patch?

Effectively, yes please.

The diff would look like:

> > > -	if (stmfx->vdd)
> > > -		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > > +	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> > > +		int ret;
> > > +
> > > +		ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > > -
> > > -	return 0;
> > > +		if (ret)

Thanks.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator fault in .remove()

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:46:37PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Feb 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > 
> > > Returning a non-zero value in an i2c remove callback results in the i2c
> > > core emitting a very generic error message ("remove failed (-ESOMETHING),
> > > will be ignored") and as the message indicates not further error handling
> > > is done.
> > > 
> > > Instead emit a more specific error message and then return zero in
> > > .remove().
> > > 
> > > The long-term goal is to make the i2c remove prototype return void, making
> > > all implementations return 0 is preparatory work for this change.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > > index e095a3930142..16631c675f2f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > > @@ -392,17 +392,21 @@ static int stmfx_chip_init(struct i2c_client *client)
> > >  	return ret;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static int stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> > > +static void stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct stmfx *stmfx = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > >  
> > >  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN, 0);
> > >  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
> > >  
> > > -	if (stmfx->vdd)
> > > -		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > > +	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> > > +		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > >  
> > > -	return 0;
> > > +		if (ret)
> > 
> > Nit: Premise of the patch is fine, but please can you use the standard
> > function call, check the return value format please.  Something about
> > this is triggering my OCD! :)
> > 
> >      	int ret;
> > 
> > 	ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > 	if (ret)
> > 		do_thing();
> 
> Not sure I understand you correctly. Do you want just:
> 
>  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
>  
>  	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> -		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> +		int ret;
> +
> +		ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
>  		if (ret)
>  ...
> 
> squashed into the patch?

Effectively, yes please.

The diff would look like:

> > > -	if (stmfx->vdd)
> > > -		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > > +	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> > > +		int ret;
> > > +
> > > +		ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > > -
> > > -	return 0;
> > > +		if (ret)

Thanks.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog