Hi Andy, On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 03:44:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:19:44PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 08:05:23PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote: > > ... > > > > > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode)) > > > > + return -ENOENT; > > > > + > > > > ret = fwnode_call_int_op(fwnode, get_reference_args, prop, nargs_prop, > > > > nargs, index, args); > > > > + if (ret == 0) > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > > > - if (ret < 0 && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode) && > > > > - !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode->secondary)) > > > > - ret = fwnode_call_int_op(fwnode->secondary, get_reference_args, > > > > - prop, nargs_prop, nargs, index, args); > > > > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode->secondary)) > > > > + return -ENOENT; > > > > > > Doesn't this mean you overwrite any return code != 0 with -ENOENT? > > > Is this intended? > > > > Indeed, it would shadow the error code. > > I was thinking more on this and am not sure about the best approach here. > On one hand in the original code this returns the actual error code from > the call against primary fwnode. But it can be at least -ENOENT or -EINVAL. > > But when we check the secondary fwnode we want to have understanding that it's > secondary fwnode which has not been found, but this requires to have a good > distinguishing between error codes from the callback. > > That said, the error codes convention of ->get_reference_args() simply > sucks. Sakari, do you have it on your TODO to fix this mess out, if it's > even feasible? What would you expect to see compared to what it is now? I guess the error code could be different for a missing property and a property with invalid data, but I'm not sure any caller would be interested in that. > > To be on safest side, I will change as suggested in previous mail (see below) > so it won't have impact on -EINVAL case. > > > So, it should go with > > > > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode->secondary)) > > return ret; > > > > then. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > > -- Sakari Ailus
