Hi Markus
On 2020/4/10 15:33, Markus Elfring wrote:
If the function "platform_get_irq()" failed, the negative value
returned will not be detected here, including "-EPROBE_DEFER",
I suggest to adjust this change description.
Wording alternative:
The negative return value (which could eventually be “-EPROBE_DEFER”)
will not be detected here from a failed call of the function “platform_get_irq”.
Hardware experiments show that the negative return value is not just
"-EPROBE_DEFER".
which causes the application to fail to get the correct error message.
Will another fine-tuning become relevant also for this wording?
Maybe that's not quite accurate.
Thus it must be fixed.
Wording alternative:
Thus adjust the error detection and corresponding exception handling.
Got it.
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Shengju Zhang <zhangshengju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
How do you think about to add the tags “Fixes”, “Link” and “Reported-by”?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=c0cc271173b2e1c2d8d0ceaef14e4dfa79eefc0d#n584
usb: gadget: fsl_udc_core: Checking for a failed platform_get_irq() call in fsl_udc_probe()
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/36341bb1-1e00-5eb1-d032-60dcc614ddaf@xxxxxx/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/8/442
…
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c
@@ -2441,8 +2441,8 @@ static int fsl_udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
udc_controller->max_ep = (dccparams & DCCPARAMS_DEN_MASK) * 2;
udc_controller->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
- if (!udc_controller->irq) {
- ret = -ENODEV;
+ if (udc_controller->irq <= 0) {
Will such a failure predicate need any more clarification?
How does this check fit to the current software documentation?
Maybe my tags are not suitable.
+ ret = udc_controller->irq ? : -ENODEV;
Will it be clearer to specify values for all cases in such a conditional operator
(instead of leaving one case empty)?
I don't know what you mean of "instead of leaving one case empty". But
by experiment, "ret = udc_controller->irq ? : -ENODEV" or "ret =
udc_controller->irq < 0 ? udc_controller->irq : -ENODEV" should be
suitable here.
Thank you for your guidance.
Tang Bin
