Hi Thierry,
On Fri, 2019-01-25 at 11:15 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When requesting a reset control for exclusive use that's already in use,
> an -EBUSY error code is returned. Users can react accordingly when they
> receive that error code, so there is no need to loudly complain.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/reset/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/reset/core.c b/drivers/reset/core.c
> index 9582efb70025..6b452f010b66 100644
> --- a/drivers/reset/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/reset/core.c
> @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static struct reset_control *__reset_control_get_internal(
>
> list_for_each_entry(rstc, &rcdev->reset_control_head, list) {
> if (rstc->id == index) {
> - if (WARN_ON(!rstc->shared || !shared))
> + if (!rstc->shared || !shared)
> return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>
> kref_get(&rstc->refcnt);
Are you actually running into this somewhere?
My reason for adding these warnings was that these point to either a DT
misconfiguration or a driver bug, and the verbose warning helps to
quickly identify the actual issue. This is not an error condition that
I would expect on a correctly configured system.
I don't expect most drivers give a proper error message that contains
the -EBUSY return value. Usually it's just along the lines of "failed to
get reset control" without any further indication.
regards
Philipp
