On 2020/08/18 1:39, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:25 AM Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Even if phy driver doesn't probe, the error message can't be distinguished from other errors. This displays error message caused by the phy driver explicitly. Signed-off-by: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c index 93ef608..7c8721e 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c @@ -489,8 +489,12 @@ static int uniphier_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return PTR_ERR(priv->rst); priv->phy = devm_phy_optional_get(dev, "pcie-phy");The point of the optional variant vs. devm_phy_get() is whether or not you get an error message. So shouldn't you switch to devm_phy_get instead?- if (IS_ERR(priv->phy)) - return PTR_ERR(priv->phy); + if (IS_ERR(priv->phy)) { + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->phy); + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get phy (%d)\n", ret); + return ret; + }
The 'phys' property is optional, so if there isn't 'phys' in the PCIe node, devm_phy_get() returns -ENODEV, and devm_phy_optional_get() returns NULL. When devm_phy_optional_get() replaces devm_phy_get(), condition for displaying an error message changes to: (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER && ret != -ENODEV) This won't be simple, but should it be replaced? Thank you, --- Best Regards Kunihiko Hayashi
