lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] usb: typec: tcpm: Get Sink VDO from fwnode
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 12:02 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On 1/31/21 7:18 AM, Kyle Tso wrote:
> > Commit a079973f462a ("usb: typec: tcpm: Remove tcpc_config
> > configuration mechanism") removed the tcpc_config which includes the
> > Sink VDO and it is not yet added back with fwnode. Add it now.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kyle Tso <kyletso@google.com>
> > ---
> > Changes since v1:
> > - updated the commit message
> >
> > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c
> > index 403a483645dd..84c8a52f8af1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c
> > @@ -5677,6 +5677,18 @@ static int tcpm_fw_get_caps(struct tcpm_port *port,
> > port->new_source_frs_current = frs_current;
> > }
> >
> > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(fwnode, "sink-vdos", NULL, 0);
>
> fwnode_property_count_u32(), maybe ?
>
That's the same and looks like fwnode_property_count_u32 is better to read.
I will revise it in the next version.

> > + if (ret <= 0 && ret != -EINVAL) {
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Why return any error except -EINVAL (including return values of 0) as -EINVAL,
> and -EINVAL as no error ?
>
sink-vdos is not a mandatory property which means -EINVAL is acceptable.

If the return < 0 and the value is not -EINVAL, it means that the
error is other than "not present" in the device tree.
If the return == 0, it means that the sink-vdos is present in the
device tree but no value inside it.
Both of the above situations are not acceptable.

> > + } else if (ret > 0) {
> > + port->nr_snk_vdo = min(ret, VDO_MAX_OBJECTS);
> > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(fwnode, "sink-vdos",
> > + port->snk_vdo,
> > + port->nr_snk_vdo);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> static analyzer code used to complain about overriding error codes.
> Not sure if that is still true. Either case, why not return the
> original error ?
>
Returning the original error codes is good. I just followed the return
value of other error handling in this function.
will revise it in the next version.

Thanks,
Kyle



> Thanks,
> Guenter
>
> > + }
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> >
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-01 06:15    [W:0.059 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site