Hi Andi,
On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 1:19 AM Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:16:11AM +0000, Prabhakar wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Update the `riic_init_hw()` function to use the local `dev` pointer in
> > calls to `dev_err_probe()`. Previously, `riic_init_hw()` used
> > `riic->adapter.dev` in error reporting. Since this function is invoked
> > during the probe phase, the I2C adapter is not yet initialized, leading to
> > `(null) ...` being printed in error messages. This patch fixes the issue by
> > consistently using the local `dev` pointer, which points to
> > `riic->adapter.dev.parent`.
> >
> > Additionally, replace `dev_err()` with `dev_err_probe()` throughout
> > `riic_init_hw()` for consistency.
> >
> > Fixes: d982d66514192 ("i2c: riic: remove clock and frequency restrictions")
> > Fixes: 71dacb2565ed (i2c: riic: Simplify unsupported bus speed handling")
>
> I'm not sure the Fixes are really necessary here, as it's not
> really leading to a bug, but I can live with it. But, then, ...
>
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v1->v2
> > - Collected RB tag from Geert
> > ---
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c | 10 ++++------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c
> > index bfaa2d728a76..01195ffd4c07 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c
> > @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static int riic_init_hw(struct riic_dev *riic)
> > : I2C_MAX_FAST_MODE_FREQ;
> >
> > if (t->bus_freq_hz > max_freq)
> > - return dev_err_probe(&riic->adapter.dev, -EINVAL,
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL,
> > "unsupported bus speed %uHz (%u max)\n",
> > t->bus_freq_hz, max_freq);
> >
> > @@ -356,11 +356,9 @@ static int riic_init_hw(struct riic_dev *riic)
> > rate /= 2;
> > }
> >
> > - if (brl > (0x1F + 3)) {
> > - dev_err(&riic->adapter.dev, "invalid speed (%lu). Too slow.\n",
> > - (unsigned long)t->bus_freq_hz);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > + if (brl > (0x1F + 3))
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "invalid speed (%lu). Too slow.\n",
> > + (unsigned long)t->bus_freq_hz);
>
> ... I'm not happy with the splitting here: mixing a bug fix with
> a cosmetic is wrong for two reasons:
>
> - they are conceptually different;
> - fixes take are applied to the -fixes branch and sent to the
> weekly pull request.
>
> I will appreciate if this second chunk is squashed with patch 1
> and the first part has a patch on its own.
>
OK, I think the best approach here would be to promote this to patch
#1 ie just replacing `&riic->adapter.dev` with `dev` (as second chunk
also includes the fix along with cosmetic change) and then make patch
#2 as replacing `dev_err` with `dev_err_probe`.
Please let me know if this is OK with you.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
