Hi Jonathan,
Am 17.09.23 um 12:45 schrieb Jonathan Cameron:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 14:13:00 +0200
> Wadim Egorov <w.egorov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> DMAs are optional. Even if the DMA request is unsuccessfully,
>> the ADC can still work properly.
>> Make tiadc_request_dma() not fail if we do not provide dmas &
>> dma-names properties.
>>
>> This actually fixes the wrong error handling of the tiadc_request_dma()
>> result where the probing only failed if -EPROPE_DEFER was returned.
>>
>> Fixes: f438b9da75eb ("drivers: iio: ti_am335x_adc: add dma support")
>>
> No line break here. Fixes tag is part of the main tag block.
>> Signed-off-by: Wadim Egorov <w.egorov@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c
>> index 8db7a01cb5fb..e14aa9254ab1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c
>> @@ -543,8 +543,11 @@ static int tiadc_request_dma(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> if (IS_ERR(dma->chan)) {
>> int ret = PTR_ERR(dma->chan);
>>
>> + if (ret != -ENODEV)
>> + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret,
>> + "RX DMA channel request failed\n");
>> dma->chan = NULL;
>> - return ret;
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> /* RX buffer */
>> @@ -670,7 +673,7 @@ static int tiadc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, indio_dev);
>>
>> err = tiadc_request_dma(pdev, adc_dev);
>> - if (err && err == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> + if (err)
> So this looks like a more subtle change than you are describing.
> In the original code, we backed off only if the return was a PROBE_DEFER, otherwise
> we carried on.
>
> Your change seems to make that happen for any non -ENODEV error, including PROBE_DEFER.
> That's fine, but it's not what the description implies.
>
> Whilst tiadc_request_dma will fail today if the dmas etc is not provided, that seems
> like correct behavior to me. A function requesting dma fails if it isn't available.
> The handling of whether to carry on the job for the caller.
That makes sense, yes. But stm32-adc is doing the same in its dma
request function.
So I assumed we can do it like that.
>
> So I think it should just be
> if (err && err != -EINVAL)
> goto err_dma;
We will end up failing if no dmas are configured because the request
returns -ENODEV.
So I think it needs to be a check for non -ENODEV.
>
> and no change in tiadc_request_dma()
>
> However, the case you describe should have worked find with existing code
> as it wasn't -EPROBE_DEFER, so I don't understand why you were looking at this
> code block in the first place?
Providing wrong dmas in the device tree should've made the driver fail
to probe.
Regards,
Wadim
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>> goto err_dma;
>>
>> return 0;
