Re: [PATCH 5/6 v2] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: use GPIO lookup table

Boris Brezillon
2018-05-30T17:52:33Z

On Wed, 30 May 2018 19:43:09 +0200
Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:05:00 AM CEST Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Janusz,
>
> Hi Boris,
>
> > On Sat, 26 May 2018 00:20:45 +0200
> > Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Changes since v1:
> > > - fix handling of devm_gpiod_get_optional() return values - thanks to
> > > Andy Shevchenko.
> >
> > Can you put the changelog after the "---" separator so that it does not
> > appear in the final commit message?
>
> Yes, sure, sorry for that.
>
> > > +err_gpiod:
> > > + if (err == -ENODEV || err == -ENOENT)
> > > + err = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> >
> > Hm, isn't it better to make gpiod_find() return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER)
> > here [1]? At least, ENOENT should not be turned into EPROBE_DEFER,
> > because it's returned when there's no entry matching the requested gpio
> > in the lookup table, and deferring the probe won't solve this problem.
>
> ENOENT is also returned when no matching lookup table is found. That may
> happen if consumer dev_name stored in the table differs from dev_name assigned
> to the consumer by its bus, the platform bus in this case. For that reason I
> think the consumer dev_name should be initialized in the table after the
> device is registered, when its actual dev_name can be obtained. If that device
> registration happens after the driver is already registered, e.g., at
> late_initcall, the device is probed before its lookup table is ready. For that
> reason returning EPROBE_DEFER seems better to me even in the ENOENT case.

Sorry, I don't get it. Aren't GPIO lookup tables supposed to be declared
in board files, especially if the GPIO is used by a platform device?
When would you have a lookup table registered later in the init/boot
process?