On Mon, Jan 30, 2023, at 18:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 02:09:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> + ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(tsin->rst_gpio);
>> if (ret && ret != -EBUSY) {
>> - dev_err(dev, "Can't request tsin%d reset gpio\n"
>> - , fei->channel_data[index]->tsin_id);
>> + dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
>> + "reset gpio for tsin%d not valid\n",
>> + tsin->tsin_id);
>> goto err_node_put;
>> }
>>
>> if (!ret) {
>
> Can be
>
> if (IS_ERR() && PTR_ERR() != -EBUSY) {
> ret = dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(), ...);
> ...
> }
>
> if (!IS_ERR())
>
> (Up to you)
I prefer the version that only has one PTR_ERR(), but
either way is fine with me.
> But -EBUSY check seems strange to me. What was the motivation behind?
> (As far as I can read the code the possibility to get this if and only
> if we have requested GPIO too early at initcall level. Would it be
> ever a possibility to get it in real life?)
I noticed this part as being odd as well, no idea why the
code is like this. I just left the logic unchanged here.
Arnd
