On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 02:51:10PM +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 02:42:04PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 01:31:58PM +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 12:56:15PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 09:10:34AM +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> > > > > From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > The enable gpio is not required when the SBU mux is used only for
> > > > > orientation, make it optional.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/usb/typec/mux/gpio-sbu-mux.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/mux/gpio-sbu-mux.c b/drivers/usb/typec/mux/gpio-sbu-mux.c
> > > > > index 374168482d36..cf44259980a1 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/mux/gpio-sbu-mux.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/mux/gpio-sbu-mux.c
> > > ...
> > > > > @@ -66,6 +66,9 @@ static int gpio_sbu_mux_set(struct typec_mux_dev *mux,
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct gpio_sbu_mux *sbu_mux = typec_mux_get_drvdata(mux);
> > > > >
> > > > > + if (!sbu_mux->enable_gpio)
> > > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > >
> > > > Can we skip registering the mux if there is no enable_gpio? This can
> > > > save users from the unexpected errors during runtime.
> > >
> > > Yes, I considered this option.
> > >
> > > The rationale for the current implementation is that if the device tree is
> > > correct (no mode-switch property, when enable-gpios is not present), nobody
> > > will call gpio_sbu_mux_set() so no runtime error is possible. If the
> > > configuration in the DT is not correct you get this runtime error.
> > >
> > > With your proposal in case the DT configuration is not correct there will be no
> > > errors from the kernel, but the functionality will not work.
> >
> > I'm slightly biased maybe, but I prefer an error from probe (or
> > dependent devices being deferred). On the other hand, current motto is
> > that 'the kernel should not duplicate dt-validate's work'.
>
> I am in favor of "the kernel should not duplicate dt-validate's work".
>
> Now the question is if you are ok with the current implementation or you want
> me to change the way you suggested.
>
> Or maybe there is a third variant, not doing the return -EOPNOTSUPP and
> registering gpio_sbu_mux_set() even if the gpio get returns NULL. This is a
> one-line patch and everything will work just fine.
I'm fine either way.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
