[PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported

Neil Armstrong
2016-08-23T08:23:39Z

On 08/19/2016 06:46 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 18/08/16 11:11, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> In Amlogic GXBB Legacy SCPI, the LEGACY_SCPI_CMD_SCPI_CAPABILITIES report
>> as SCPI_ERR_SUPPORT, so do not fail if this command is not supported.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 12 +++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>> index 3fe39fe..d3be4c5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>> @@ -1111,12 +1111,13 @@ err:
>> ret = scpi_info->ops->init_versions(scpi_info);
>> else
>> ret = scpi_init_versions(scpi_info);
>> - if (ret) {
>> + if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>> dev_err(dev, "incorrect or no SCP firmware found\n");
>> scpi_remove(pdev);
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>
> Why not deal it in init_versions itself.
>
>> + if (ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>> _dev_info(dev, "SCP Protocol %d.%d Firmware %d.%d.%d version\n",
>> PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>> PROTOCOL_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>
> Why not have default value like 0.0 ? Just add a comment. Since get
> version is exported out, IMO having default value makes more sense. What
> do you think ?
>
>> @@ -1124,15 +1125,16 @@ err:
>> FW_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->firmware_version),
>> FW_REV_PATCH(scpi_info->firmware_version));
>>
>> + ret = sysfs_create_groups(&dev->kobj, versions_groups);
>> + if (ret)
>> + dev_err(dev, "unable to create sysfs version group\n");
>> + }
>> +
>
> Again this can stay as is if we have default.
>

Printing version 0.0 firmware 0.0.0 is a nonsense for me...

Neil