Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] i2c: riic: Use local `dev` pointer in `dev_err_probe()`

Andi Shyti
2024-12-26T10:06:12Z

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 07:39:33AM +0000, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 1:19 AM Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:16:11AM +0000, Prabhakar wrote:
> > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> > >
> > > Update the `riic_init_hw()` function to use the local `dev` pointer in
> > > calls to `dev_err_probe()`. Previously, `riic_init_hw()` used
> > > `riic->adapter.dev` in error reporting. Since this function is invoked
> > > during the probe phase, the I2C adapter is not yet initialized, leading to
> > > `(null) ...` being printed in error messages. This patch fixes the issue by
> > > consistently using the local `dev` pointer, which points to
> > > `riic->adapter.dev.parent`.
> > >
> > > Additionally, replace `dev_err()` with `dev_err_probe()` throughout
> > > `riic_init_hw()` for consistency.
> > >
> > > Fixes: d982d66514192 ("i2c: riic: remove clock and frequency restrictions")
> > > Fixes: 71dacb2565ed (i2c: riic: Simplify unsupported bus speed handling")
> >
> > I'm not sure the Fixes are really necessary here, as it's not
> > really leading to a bug, but I can live with it. But, then, ...

On a second thought, I think this Fixes tag is not needed: there
is no bug as the missing reference is already handled.

> > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> > > ---
> > > v1->v2
> > > - Collected RB tag from Geert
> > > ---
> > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c | 10 ++++------
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c
> > > index bfaa2d728a76..01195ffd4c07 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c
> > > @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static int riic_init_hw(struct riic_dev *riic)
> > > : I2C_MAX_FAST_MODE_FREQ;
> > >
> > > if (t->bus_freq_hz > max_freq)
> > > - return dev_err_probe(&riic->adapter.dev, -EINVAL,
> > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL,
> > > "unsupported bus speed %uHz (%u max)\n",
> > > t->bus_freq_hz, max_freq);
> > >
> > > @@ -356,11 +356,9 @@ static int riic_init_hw(struct riic_dev *riic)
> > > rate /= 2;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (brl > (0x1F + 3)) {
> > > - dev_err(&riic->adapter.dev, "invalid speed (%lu). Too slow.\n",
> > > - (unsigned long)t->bus_freq_hz);
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > - }
> > > + if (brl > (0x1F + 3))
> > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "invalid speed (%lu). Too slow.\n",
> > > + (unsigned long)t->bus_freq_hz);
> >
> > ... I'm not happy with the splitting here: mixing a bug fix with
> > a cosmetic is wrong for two reasons:
> >
> > - they are conceptually different;
> > - fixes take are applied to the -fixes branch and sent to the
> > weekly pull request.
> >
> > I will appreciate if this second chunk is squashed with patch 1
> > and the first part has a patch on its own.
> >
> OK, I think the best approach here would be to promote this to patch
> #1 ie just replacing `&riic->adapter.dev` with `dev` (as second chunk
> also includes the fix along with cosmetic change) and then make patch
> #2 as replacing `dev_err` with `dev_err_probe`.
>
> Please let me know if this is OK with you.

As Wolfram suggested, the dev_err_probe chunk can be squashed in
the patch 1 and make a single patch that is about
/dev_err/dev_err_probe. Further splitting based on internal
functions is a bit too much.

While the first chunk belongs to a different change.

Please, keep all the tags in your next version: I don't believe
anyone would object.

Thanks,
Andi