This could use a [0/n] cover letter to hold this together as a series.
In my mind, "Properly" adds nothing (why would we merge something done
"improperly"?) and takes space that could be better used for more
specific details.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:36:32PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> devm_of_phy_get() can fail for a number of resides besides probe
> deferral. It can for example return -ENOMEM if it runs out of memory as
> it tries to allocate devres structures. Propagating only -EPROBE_DEFER
> is problematic because it results in these legitimately fatal errors
> being treated as "PHY not specified in DT".
s/resides/reasons/? (Also in other patches, I think)
> What we really want is to ignore the optional PHYs only if they have not
> been specified in DT. devm_of_phy_get() returns -ENODEV in this case, so
> that's the special case that we need to handle. So we propagate all
> errors, except -ENODEV, so that real failures will still cause the
> driver to fail probe.
>
> Cc: Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c
> index cee5f2f590e2..14a6ba4067fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c
> @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ static int __init exynos_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> ep->phy = devm_of_phy_get(dev, np, NULL);
> if (IS_ERR(ep->phy)) {
> - if (PTR_ERR(ep->phy) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + if (PTR_ERR(ep->phy) != -ENODEV)
> return PTR_ERR(ep->phy);
>
> ep->phy = NULL;
> --
> 2.22.0
>
