On 20.06.2023 20:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/06/2023 20:14, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:26:13PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 15/06/2023 23:12, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>> As it turns out, not all regmap accesses succeed. Not knowing this is >>>> particularly suboptimal when there's a breaking change to the regmap >>>> APIs. Monitor the return values of regmap_ calls and propagate errors, >>>> should any occur. >>>> >>>> To keep any level of readability in bwmon_enable(), add some comments >>>> to separate the logical blocks. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Nice coincidence, I just had some talks with a friend about uselessness >>> (IMHO) of regmap MMIO return status checks. >>> >>> Sorry, for me most of this makes the code difficult to read for no gain. >>> Errors are not real. This is some artificial problem. Solving it makes >>> code less maintainable. >>> >>> If we used here readl/writel, you would not add any checks, right? Then >>> don't add for regmap mmio. >>> >> >> I agree, the mmio regmap interface should only fail because of bugs or >> things are misconfigured. Would be nice to capture that in a WARN_ON() >> or something... >> > > One choice could be to have for entire functions doing reads/writes: > > ret = 0; > ret != regmap_write(); > ret != regmap_write(); > ret != regmap_write(); > return ret; > > and handle this in the caller somehow. I don't think that aborting such > chain early, just because regmap mmio failures, makes sense. Meh, perhaps let's just forget about this patch. Konrad > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
