On 08/08/2023 13:42, Andi Shyti wrote:
>>>> +static void __iomem *fimc_is_get_pmu_regs(struct device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct device_node *node;
>>>> + void __iomem *regs;
>>>> +
>>>> + node = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "samsung,pmu-syscon", 0);
>>>> + if (!node) {
>>>> + dev_warn(dev, "Finding PMU node via deprecated method, update your DTB\n");
>>>> + node = of_get_child_by_name(dev->of_node, "pmu");
>>>> + if (!node)
>>>> + return IOMEM_ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>>
>>> in my opinion this should be:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> if (!node)
>>> return IOMEM_ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>>
>>> dev_warn(dev, "Finding PMU node via deprecated method, update your DTB\n");
>>>
>>> Because if you don't have both "samsung,pmu-syscon and "pmu" then
>>> the warning should not be printed and you need to return -ENODEV.
>>
>> Why not? Warning is correct - the driver is trying to find, thus
>> continuous tense "Finding", PMU node via old method.
>
> Alright, I'll go along with what you're suggesting, but I have to
> say, I find it misleading.
>
> From what I understand, you're requesting an update to the dtb
> because it's using deprecated methods. However, the reality might
> be that the node is not present in any method at all.
>
> Your statement would be accurate if you failed to find the
> previous method but then did end up finding it.
>
> Relying on the present continuous tense for clarity is a bold
> move, don't you think? :)
I just don't think it matters and is not worth resending.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
