[PATCH v3 1/4] PCI: rockchip: Make 'ep-gpios' DT property optional
Chen-Yu Tsai
wens at kernel.org
Tue Jan 19 04:15:45 EST 2021
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:11 PM Heiko Stübner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, 6. Januar 2021, 14:46:14 CET schrieb Chen-Yu Tsai:
> > From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
> >
> > The Rockchip PCIe controller DT binding clearly states that 'ep-gpios' is
> > an optional property. And indeed there are boards that don't require it.
> >
> > Make the driver follow the binding by using devm_gpiod_get_optional()
> > instead of devm_gpiod_get().
> >
> > Fixes: e77f847df54c ("PCI: rockchip: Add Rockchip PCIe controller support")
> > Fixes: 956cd99b35a8 ("PCI: rockchip: Separate common code from RC driver")
> > Fixes: 964bac9455be ("PCI: rockchip: Split out rockchip_pcie_parse_dt() to parse DT")
> > Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
> > ---
> > Heiko, I dropped you reviewed-by due to the error message change
> >
> > Changes since v2:
> > - Fix error message for failed GPIO
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > - Rewrite subject to match existing convention and reference
> > 'ep-gpios' DT property instead of the 'ep_gpio' field
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.c
> > index 904dec0d3a88..90c957e3bc73 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.c
> > @@ -118,9 +118,10 @@ int rockchip_pcie_parse_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
> > }
> >
> > if (rockchip->is_rc) {
> > - rockchip->ep_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "ep", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> > + rockchip->ep_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "ep", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> > if (IS_ERR(rockchip->ep_gpio)) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "missing ep-gpios property in node\n");
> > + dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(rockchip->ep_gpio),
> > + "failed to get ep GPIO\n");
> > return PTR_ERR(rockchip->ep_gpio);
>
> looking at [0] shouldn't that be just
> return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(.....)...);
> instead of dev_err_probe + additional return?
You're right. I was only expecting dev_err_probe() to deal with -EPROBE_DEFER.
I believe there won't be any future changes that would add any code here,
so I'll respin with the proper changes you mentioned.
Thanks!
ChenYu
> Heiko
>
> [0] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/base/core.c#L4223
>
> > }
> > }
> >
>
>
>
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list