Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] PM: domains: Delete usage of driver_deferred_probe_check_state()

Ulf Hansson
2022-06-09T11:45:42Z

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 09:07, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> wrote:
>
> Now that fw_devlink=on by default and fw_devlink supports
> "power-domains" property, the execution will never get to the point
> where driver_deferred_probe_check_state() is called before the supplier
> has probed successfully or before deferred probe timeout has expired.
>
> So, delete the call and replace it with -ENODEV.

With fw_devlink=on by default - does that mean that the parameter
can't be changed?

Or perhaps the point is that we don't want to go back, but rather drop
the fw_devlink parameter altogether when moving forward?

>
> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>

Just a minor nitpick below. Nevertheless, feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>

> ---
> drivers/base/power/domain.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> index 739e52cd4aba..3e86772d5fac 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> @@ -2730,7 +2730,7 @@ static int __genpd_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev, struct device *base_dev,
> mutex_unlock(&gpd_list_lock);
> dev_dbg(dev, "%s() failed to find PM domain: %ld\n",
> __func__, PTR_ERR(pd));
> - return driver_deferred_probe_check_state(base_dev);

Adding a brief comment about why -EPROBE_DEFER doesn't make sense
here, would be nice.

> + return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> dev_dbg(dev, "adding to PM domain %s\n", pd->name);
> --
> 2.36.1.255.ge46751e96f-goog
>

Kind regards
Uffe