Re: [PATCH] spi: Fix error code checking in spi_mem_exec_op()

[Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/13/24 12:29, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13 2024, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
> > On 3/13/24 11:28, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 13 2024, Michael Walle wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed Mar 13, 2024 at 6:10 PM CET, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > > > After commit cff49d58f57e ("spi: Unify error codes by replacing -ENOTSUPP with
> > > > > -EOPNOTSUPP"), our SPI NOR flashes would stop probing with the following
> > > > > visible in the kernel log:
> > > > >
> > > > > [    2.196300] brcmstb_qspi f0440920.qspi: using bspi-mspi mode
> > > > > [    2.210295] spi-nor: probe of spi1.0 failed with error -95
> > > > >
> > > > > It turns out that the check in spi_mem_exec_op() was changed to check
> > > > > for -ENOTSUPP (old error code) or -EOPNOTSUPP (new error code), but this
> > > > > means that for drivers that were converted, the second condition is now
> > > > > true, and we stop falling through like we used to. Fix the error to
> > > > > check for neither error being neither -ENOTSUPP *nor* -EOPNOTSUPP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: cff49d58f57e ("spi: Unify error codes by replacing -ENOTSUPP with -EOPNOTSUPP")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Change-Id: I4159811f6c582c4de2143382473d2000b8755872
> > > >
> > > > Ha, thank you!
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <mwalle@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > FWIW in next, there is commit
> > > > e63aef9c9121e ("spi: spi-mem: add statistics support to ->exec_op() calls")
> > > > that probably will conflict with this one.
> > > >
> > > > Also, - not for this patch - but with that logic, spi_mem_exec_op()
> > > > might return EOPNOTSUPP *or* ENOTSUPP, even for drivers which might
> > > > still return ENOTSUPP, because there is one condition in
> > > > spi_mem_exec_op() which will always return EOPNOTSUPP. That is
> > > > somewhat confusing, no?
> > > I agree. I suppose it would be better to do:
> > >       if (!ret)
> > >          return 0;
> > >       if (ret == -ENOTSUPP || ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > >          return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >
> > But with e63aef9c9121e ("spi: spi-mem: add statistics support to ->exec_op()
> > calls") applied, would not that mean duplicating the statistics gathering, or
> > were the statistics gathering only intended for when ret == 0?
>
> Hmm, I didn't properly understand this. Ignore my suggestion. Your patch
> does the right thing.

What I meant is that e63aef9c9121e will increment statistics not just 
when we return 0 from ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op, but also if we return 
-ENOTSUPP or -EOPNOTSUPP, and I am  not sure if this is exactly what is 
intended. But this is somewhat orthogonal.

> In this case we should return ret when:
>
>      ret is 0
>      OR
>      when ret is not -EOPNOTSUPP or -ENOTSUPP.
>
> So if we get either of the two we _won't_ return and continue forward.
>
>  From looking at just this, spi_mem_exec_op() only returns -EOPNOTSUPP so
> far since it has:
>
> 	if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op))
> 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> But then looking further, it has:
>
> 	ret = spi_sync(mem->spi, &msg);
>
> 	if (ret)
> 		return ret;
>
> spi_sync() can return -ENOTSUPP if it goes via __spi_async(). I suppose
> we would need to fix that if we want consistent return codes. But that
> isn't a problem this patch should fix. So with the merge conflict fixed
> up,

Thanks, although as I replied to Mark in the other branch of the thread, 
since this is a regression affecting v6.8, would not we want it to be 
fast tracked, and not based upon for-next?

> Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@xxxxxxxxxx>

--
Florian

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature