For some reasons, I received your message twice (with a two minutes
interval between both messages). These look identical. I am answering
the most recent. :)
On 19/03/2025 at 22:27, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On the Renesas Gray Hawk Single development board:
>
> can-transceiver-phy can-phy0: /can-phy0: failed to get mux-state (0)
>
> "mux-states" is an optional property for CAN transceivers. However,
> mux_get() always prints an error message in case of an error, including
> when the property is not present, confusing the user.
Hmmm, I understand why you are doing this patch. But on the long term,
wouldn't it make more sense to have a devm_mux_state_get_optional()? Or
maybe add a property somewhere to inform devm_mux_state_get() that this
is optional?
Regardless, just see this as an open question. I am OK with the approach
of your patch.
> Fix this by re-instating the property presence check.
>
> This is bascially a revert of commit d02dfd4ceb2e9f34 ("phy:
> can-transceiver: Drop unnecessary "mux-states" property presence
> check"), with two changes:
> 1. Use the proper API for checking whether a property is present,
> 2. Do not print an error message, as the mux core already takes care
> of that.
>
> Fixes: d02dfd4ceb2e9f34 ("phy: can-transceiver: Drop unnecessary "mux-states" property presence check")> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
Notwithstanding of above comment:
Reviewed-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol
