On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:29:42AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:26:07AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 09:17:58AM +0000, Karoly Pados wrote:
> > > > I think it's better to add the autopm call to gpio210x_gpio_get/set
> > > > only. This will allow for a simpler patch, and keeps the autopm handling
> > > > confined to the gpio paths.
> > >
> > > I'll submit a v2.
> > >
> > > >> @@ -1383,6 +1397,7 @@ static void cp210x_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int gpio, int
> > > >> value)
> > > >> } else {
> > > >> u16 wIndex = buf.state << 8 | buf.mask;
> > > >>
> > > >> + usb_autopm_get_interface(serial->interface);
> > > >
> > > > Also make sure to always check for errors from autopm_get().
> > >
> > > I checked everywhere else, the reason I didn't check here is on
> > > purpose based on your previous feedback. The caller function here
> > > doesn't have a return value, so the only way to return errors is to
> > > log, but in my last patch to ftdi_sio you made clear that errors from
> > > autopm_get shouldn't get logged. Trying to call usb_control_msg() even
> > > though the device could not wake does not cause issues, and the return
> > > value from usb_control_msg() clearly identifies the reason for failure
> > > (failure due to autosuspend), so error information is not lost either.
> > > So I thought not checking here has no real disadvantage and I still
> > > stay conformant to your previous guidance.
> >
> > Ok, I understand your reasoning, but please do check for errors and bail
> > out early if autopm_get() fails. No need to log errors.
>
> Actually, we should probably add the missing error handling to the
> callers and have gpio_set() propagate errors too. If you want to take a
> stab at that, that could be a follow-on patch.
Karoly, did you plan on sending a v2 of this one?
Thanks,
Johan
