On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Roger Quadros wrote:
> As the USB PHY layer never returns NULL we don't need
> to check for that condition.
>
> If we fail to get the PHY device it could be due
> to missing USB PHY drivers. Give this hint to the user
> in the error message.
>
> CC: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/usb/host/ehci-omap.c | 6 +++---
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-omap.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-omap.c
> index 5de3e43..2e34ddd 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-omap.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-omap.c
> @@ -175,13 +175,13 @@ static int ehci_hcd_omap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> phy = devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle(dev, "phys", i);
> else
> phy = devm_usb_get_phy_dev(dev, i);
> - if (IS_ERR(phy) || !phy) {
> + if (IS_ERR(phy)) {
> /* Don't bail out if PHY is not absolutely necessary */
> if (pdata->port_mode[i] != OMAP_EHCI_PORT_MODE_PHY)
> continue;
>
> - ret = IS_ERR(phy) ? PTR_ERR(phy) : -ENODEV;
> - dev_err(dev, "Can't get PHY device for port %d: %d\n",
> + ret = PTR_ERR(phy);
> + dev_err(dev, "Can't get PHY device for port %d: %d. Is USB_PHY driver enabled?\n",
> i, ret);
> goto err_phy;
> }
Getting rid of the !phy test is good. But I'm doubtful about the
change to the error message. Are you going to make a similar change to
every platform driver? There doesn't seem to be any reason to do this
for ehci-omap but not the others.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
