On Fri 2018-07-27 09:19:01, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:37:05PM -0400, David Rivshin wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:54:26 +0200
> > Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:36:58AM -0400, David Rivshin wrote:
> > > > From: David Rivshin <DRivshin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > If a pwm-omap-dmtimer is probed before the dmtimer it uses, the platform
> > > > data won't be set yet.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: ac30751df953 ("ARM: OMAP: pdata-quirks: Remove unused timer pdata")
> > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.17+
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Rivshin <drivshin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>
> > > > Tested-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > * Added Pavel's Acked-by/Tested-by [1]
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/16/346
> > > >
> > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c | 5 +++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c
> > > > index 665da3c8fbceb..d3d7ea7a53146 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c
> > > > @@ -264,8 +264,9 @@ static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > >
> > > > timer_pdata = dev_get_platdata(&timer_pdev->dev);
> > > > if (!timer_pdata) {
> > > > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "dmtimer pdata structure NULL\n");
> > > > - ret = -EINVAL;
> > > > + dev_info(&pdev->dev,
> > > > + "dmtimer pdata structure NULL, deferring probe\n");
> > >
> > > This seems to be a bit verbose for EPROBE_DEFER case. Could we either remove
> > > it as it is done later in pdata->request_by_node(timer) failure case or at
> > > least make it dev_dbg? Otherwise thank you and with mentioned change
> > > Acked-by: Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Hi Ladislav, thanks for the review.
> >
> > I had grepped through other drivers and found no consistent pattern. Some
> > places used dev_err still, others reduced to one of dev_{warn,info,dbg},
> > and others no message at all. Some messages mentioned they are deferring
> > the probe, other didn't. I was already getting a couple of dev_info from
> > the pinctrl core code, so I went that way. I figured the message might be
> > useful to someone, but I don't feel strongly.
>
> Well, pinctrl probe deferal message is a bit annoying. It really does not
> tell us much as long as pins are correctly configured and in case they are
> not it is useless as well :)
>
> > I personally would lean to dev_dbg if you think dev_info is too harsh,
> > just in case someone's board suddenly isn't working after upgrade. But
> > I'm certainly willing to remove the message entirely if you feel strongly,
> > or anyone else cares to weigh in.
>
> I'm fine with dev_dbg as well.
Looks good to me, too.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
