Hi Krzysztof,
On 08/08/2023 01:13, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> [...]
>
>> +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.
I agree with Andi for this part.
The only time you want to see this message is if samsung,pmu-syscon is
missing AND pmu is present. If both are missing, then just return ENODEV as
it was before.
>
> ... and... "*please* update your DTB", the user might get upset
> and out of sheer spite, decides not to do it – just because! :)
I don't care about this bit. I guess it doesn't hurt to add 'please', but
I accept it either way.
Regards,
Hans
>
> Andi
>
>> + }
