On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:14:03PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > Thank you for all the reviews. > > On 7/15/20 6:39 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 7/14/20 4:36 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > This can be used by Type-C controller drivers which use a standard > > > usb-connector fwnode, with altmodes sub-node, to describe the available > > > altmodes. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/usb/typec/class.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > include/linux/usb/typec.h | 7 +++++ > > > 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/class.c b/drivers/usb/typec/class.c > > > index c9234748537a..47de2b2e3d54 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/class.c > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/class.c > > > @@ -1607,6 +1607,62 @@ typec_port_register_altmode(struct typec_port *port, > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(typec_port_register_altmode); > > > +void typec_port_register_altmodes_from_fwnode(struct typec_port *port, > > > + const struct typec_altmode_ops *ops, void *drvdata, > > > + struct typec_altmode **altmodes, size_t n, > > > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > > > +{ > > > + struct fwnode_handle *altmodes_node, *child; > > > + struct typec_altmode_desc desc; > > > + struct typec_altmode *alt; > > > + size_t index = 0; > > > + u32 svid, vdo; > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + altmodes_node = fwnode_get_named_child_node(fwnode, "altmodes"); > > > + if (!altmodes_node) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + child = NULL; > > > + while ((child = fwnode_get_next_child_node(altmodes_node, child))) { > > > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "svid", &svid); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + dev_err(&port->dev, "Error reading svid for altmode %s\n", > > > + fwnode_get_name(child)); > > > + continue; > > > > The properties are mandatory. I think the errors should not be ignored. > > I have done this this way deliberately, let me try to explain: > > We basically have 2 choices here: > > 1) Log an error and continue, skipping/ignoring the faulty altmode fw-child-node > 2) Make the error fatal, rollback all changes made so far and return an error > to our caller > > First of all, these errors should never happen and if they do happen then the > person adding the new alt-mode to the dt, will presumably test that this alt-mode > works, sees that it does not, check the logs and know why. So for stable shipping > kernels I would expect to never hit this path. > > Secondly even if we somehow do hit this path in a stable shipping kernel, then > what should our caller do if we return an error? Our caller basically has 2 choices: > > 1. Log and otherwise ignore the error > 2. Completely abort the registration of the Type-C controller, possibly breaking > things like USB over the port, charging, etc. > > 2. Seems rather drastic and is not necessary, except for the alt-modes all the > other functionality of the port will work fine if the call fails. So our caller > should probably choose 1. as error handling strategy. If it does that, then for > the error logging it can rely on typec_port_register_altmodes_from_fwnode() having > already logged an error, so it can just treat it as returning void. > > But if our caller does not care, would it then not be better to just ignore > any bad alt-mode child nodes and still try to register an alt-mode for the > good ones? > > Thirdly adding code to unwind the registration of the alt-modes done so far > + adding code to our caller to abort the port registration would be adding a > bunch of extra, fragile code for something which should (and likely will) > never happen. So we ware adding a bunch of code here which in essence is > pretty much never tested and thus is almost assured to either be broken > from day 1, or to become broken over time. > > The kernel is likely full of error handling paths with bugs because it is > trying to handle errors which never happen. Sometimes this is necessary > because e.g. a driver's probe function cannot continue without acquiring > a certain resource. But in this case we can easily avoid the broken error > handling code syndrome; and keep the code nice and simple, by just skipping > over broken nodes. > IMO all errors should be handled. I don't really trust implementers to do the right thing. I have seen too many patches which don't even compile. Correct, this should not happen, and it won't happen if the DT is correct. Only a complete abort will really force the implementer to fix the problem. Yes, error handling is not always properly implemented. In such cases, error handling should be fixed, not abandoned. I understand that we are well into philosophy. I'll let others decide if they want to accept your patch as-is. Thanks, Guenter > > > > > + } > > > + > > > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "vdo", &vdo); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + dev_err(&port->dev, "Error reading vdo for altmode %s\n", > > > + fwnode_get_name(child)); > > > + continue; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (index >= n) { > > > + dev_err(&port->dev, "Error not enough space for altmode %s\n", > > > + fwnode_get_name(child)); > > > + continue; > > > > Seems to be pointless to continue here. > > Continuing here makes sure that if the dts contains 10 alt-modes and n = 8 that we print > an error for both alt-modes which we are not registering because there is not enough space > in the passed in array for storing alt-mode pointers. > > It also ensures that we error check any further nodes for missing svid/vdo properties. > > > > > > > + } > > > + > > > + desc.svid = svid; > > > + desc.vdo = vdo; > > > + desc.mode = index + 1; > > > + alt = typec_port_register_altmode(port, &desc); > > > + if (IS_ERR(alt)) { > > > + dev_err(&port->dev, "Error registering altmode %s\n", > > > + fwnode_get_name(child)); > > > + continue; > > > > Maybe there is a reason to ignore all those errors. If so, > > that should be explained. > > See above, note this is another error which should never happen, I think > this can only happen in case of -ENOMEM, which itself can only happen > for allocations of an order greater then n=2 AFAIK, and I don't think > typec_port_register_altmode() does any such allocations. > > I guess some comment here is warranted, but my full explanation above > is way too long. So maybe a simple comment like this? : > > /* Should never happen, keep the error handling as simple as possible */ > > Regards, > > Hans > > > > > > > + } > > > + > > > + alt->ops = ops; > > > + typec_altmode_set_drvdata(alt, drvdata); > > > + altmodes[index] = alt; > > > + index++; > > > + } > > > +} > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(typec_port_register_altmodes_from_fwnode); > > > + > > > /** > > > * typec_register_port - Register a USB Type-C Port > > > * @parent: Parent device > > > diff --git a/include/linux/usb/typec.h b/include/linux/usb/typec.h > > > index 5daa1c49761c..fbe4bccb3a98 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/usb/typec.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/usb/typec.h > > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ struct typec_partner; > > > struct typec_cable; > > > struct typec_plug; > > > struct typec_port; > > > +struct typec_altmode_ops; > > > struct fwnode_handle; > > > struct device; > > > @@ -121,6 +122,12 @@ struct typec_altmode > > > struct typec_altmode > > > *typec_port_register_altmode(struct typec_port *port, > > > const struct typec_altmode_desc *desc); > > > + > > > +void typec_port_register_altmodes_from_fwnode(struct typec_port *port, > > > + const struct typec_altmode_ops *ops, void *drvdata, > > > + struct typec_altmode **altmodes, size_t n, > > > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode); > > > + > > > void typec_unregister_altmode(struct typec_altmode *altmode); > > > struct typec_port *typec_altmode2port(struct typec_altmode *alt); > > > > > >