On Friday 01 April 2016 13:29:14, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Alexander Stein > > <alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [Me] > > > >> And in this case (if gpio_keys handle -EPROBE_DEFER gracefully) > >> all should be fine with my oneliner patch. > >> > >> I am more uncertain about the -EINVAL (-22) we might need some > >> more analysis there. > > > > I did 10 runs and got the following results: > >> 3x gpio-keys user_sw: Unable to claim irq 0; error -22 > >> 2x gpio-keys user_sw: Unable to get irq number for GPIO 376, error -517 > >> 5x ok > > > > So, for one gpio-keys seems not to handle -EPROBE_DEFER gracefully > > After reading the code the only problem seems to be that it prints that > error. A small patch to silence that print should fix it then, can you > confirm that in these cases the gpio-keys are retried later? Ah, yes. You're right. I just checked for the error messages, but not if the device are actually absent. I just had a start where a (different) gpio-keys device failed with error -517 but is available when loggin in. So it really is just fix to silence on -DEFER_PROBE. Best regards, Alexander -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
