[PATCH] mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio_of()

[PATCH] mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio_of()

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message
is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function.

Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---

 drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
index d3e1561ca075..00727936ad6e 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
@@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ static int mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(struct device *dev, struct sdio_mmc_card *card)
 				dev_err(dev,
 					"Failed to request irq_wifi %d (%d)\n",
 					cfg->irq_wifi, ret);
+				return ret;
 			}
 			disable_irq(cfg->irq_wifi);
 		}
-- 
2.5.5

Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio_of()

[Arend van Spriel]

On 18-08-16 16:17, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message
> is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function.

Hmm. The caller function, ie. mwifiex_sdio_probe(), does not seem to care.

The device may still function without this wake interrupt.

Regards,
Arend

> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> ---
> 
>  drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
> index d3e1561ca075..00727936ad6e 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
> @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ static int mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(struct device *dev, struct sdio_mmc_card *card)
>  				dev_err(dev,
>  					"Failed to request irq_wifi %d (%d)\n",
>  					cfg->irq_wifi, ret);
> +				return ret;
>  			}
>  			disable_irq(cfg->irq_wifi);
>  		}
> 

Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio_of()

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Arend,

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

On 08/18/2016 03:14 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 18-08-16 16:17, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message
>> is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function.
> 
> Hmm. The caller function, ie. mwifiex_sdio_probe(), does not seem to care.
>

Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. It's checking the wifiex_sdio_probe_of()
return value.

If the IRQ request failing is not an error, then at the very least the call
to disable_irq() should be avoided if request_irq() fails, and the message
should be changed from dev_err() to dev_dgb() or dev_info().
 
> The device may still function without this wake interrupt.
>

That's correct, the binding says that the "interrupts" property in the child
node is optional since is just a wakeup IRQ. Now the question is if should
be an error if the IRQ is defined but fails to be requested.

> Regards,
> Arend
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America

Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio_of()

[Arend van Spriel]

On 18-08-16 21:29, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Arend,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your feedback.
> 
> On 08/18/2016 03:14 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 18-08-16 16:17, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message
>>> is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function.
>>
>> Hmm. The caller function, ie. mwifiex_sdio_probe(), does not seem to care.
>>
> 
> Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. It's checking the wifiex_sdio_probe_of()
> return value.

Ok. I looked at 4.7 sources on lxr [1].

> If the IRQ request failing is not an error, then at the very least the call
> to disable_irq() should be avoided if request_irq() fails, and the message
> should be changed from dev_err() to dev_dgb() or dev_info().

agree.

>> The device may still function without this wake interrupt.
>>
> 
> That's correct, the binding says that the "interrupts" property in the child
> node is optional since is just a wakeup IRQ. Now the question is if should
> be an error if the IRQ is defined but fails to be requested.

Clearly it indicates an error in the DT specification so behavior is not
as expected. Personally I would indeed consider it an error, but I was
just indicating that it might have done like this intentionally.

Regards,
Arend

[1]
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c#L192

>> Regards,
>> Arend
>>
> 
> Best regards,
> 

Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio_of()

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Arend,

On 08/18/2016 03:49 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18-08-16 21:29, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> Hello Arend,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your feedback.
>>
>> On 08/18/2016 03:14 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>> On 18-08-16 16:17, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message
>>>> is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function.
>>>
>>> Hmm. The caller function, ie. mwifiex_sdio_probe(), does not seem to care.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. It's checking the wifiex_sdio_probe_of()
>> return value.
> 
> Ok. I looked at 4.7 sources on lxr [1].
>

Oh, right. That was fixed quite recently indeed.
 
>> If the IRQ request failing is not an error, then at the very least the call
>> to disable_irq() should be avoided if request_irq() fails, and the message
>> should be changed from dev_err() to dev_dgb() or dev_info().
> 
> agree.
> 
>>> The device may still function without this wake interrupt.
>>>
>>
>> That's correct, the binding says that the "interrupts" property in the child
>> node is optional since is just a wakeup IRQ. Now the question is if should
>> be an error if the IRQ is defined but fails to be requested.
> 
> Clearly it indicates an error in the DT specification so behavior is not
> as expected. Personally I would indeed consider it an error, but I was
> just indicating that it might have done like this intentionally.
>

Yes, might had been done intentionally indeed but I don't think that is
the case since the driver lacked error checking and propagation in many
places. But if someone thinks that's better to not honor the DT and at
least have the driver working without the wake up capability, then I'm
happy to respin the patch and change the print log level to info/debug.
 
> Regards,
> Arend
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America

Re: mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio_of()

[Kalle Valo]

Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message
> is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>

What's the conclusion with this patch? Should I drop it or take it?

(The discussion is available from the patchwork link in the signature.)

-- 
Sent by pwcli
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9288169/

Re: mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio_of()

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Kalle,

On 09/03/2016 12:35 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message
>> is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> 
> What's the conclusion with this patch? Should I drop it or take it?
> 
> (The discussion is available from the patchwork link in the signature.)
> 

My understanding is that Arend agrees with the patch and that the question
raised was caused by looking at an older kernel version. IOW, the patch is
OK and should be picked.

I'm adding Arend to cc, so can comment in case I misunderstood him though.

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America

RE: mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio_of()

[Amitkumar Karwar]
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==

Re: mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio_of()

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Amitkumar,

On 09/08/2016 11:55 AM, Amitkumar Karwar wrote:
> Hi Javier,
> 
>> From: Javier Martinez Canillas [mailto:javier@osg.samsung.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:43 PM
>> To: Kalle Valo
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Amitkumar Karwar;
>> netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Nishant
>> Sarmukadam; Arend van Spriel
>> Subject: Re: mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in
>> mwifiex_sdio_of()
>>
>> Hello Kalle,
>>
>> On 09/03/2016 12:35 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error
>>>> message is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the
>> caller function.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>>>
>>> What's the conclusion with this patch? Should I drop it or take it?
>>>
>>> (The discussion is available from the patchwork link in the
>>> signature.)
>>>
>>
>> My understanding is that Arend agrees with the patch and that the
>> question raised was caused by looking at an older kernel version. IOW,
>> the patch is OK and should be picked.
>>
>> I'm adding Arend to cc, so can comment in case I misunderstood him
>> though.
>>
> 
> This error doesn't affect actual wifi functionality. Only thing is wakeup on interrupt when system is in suspended state won't work.
> I think, we can make below change. 
> 
> ------------------
> @@ -122,9 +122,11 @@ static int mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(struct device *dev, struct sdio_mmc_card *card)
>                                                IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW,
>                                                "wifi_wake", cfg);
>            if (ret) {
> -                    dev_err(dev,
> +                    dev_dbg(dev,
>                              "Failed to request irq_wifi %d (%d)\n",
>                              cfg->irq_wifi, ret);
> +                    card->plt_wake_cfg = NULL;
> +                    return 0;
>              }

I'm OK with that change. Feel free too add my Reviewed-by if you post it.

>                 disable_irq(cfg->irq_wifi);
>             }
> -----------------
> 
> Regards,
> Amitkumar
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America