On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 10:24:25AM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > On 10/6/25 7:26 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 05:37:23PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > >> On 10/6/25 3:02 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 02:55:38AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>>> From: Cristian Ciocaltea <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> The error handling in dw_hdmi_qp_rockchip_bind() is quite inconsistent, > >>>> i.e. in some cases the error code is not included in the message, while > >>>> in some other cases there is no check for -EPROBE_DEFER. > >>>> > >>>> Since this is part of the probe path, address the aforementioned issues > >>>> by switching to dev_err_probe(), which also reduces the code a bit. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <[email protected]> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]> > >>>> --- > >>>> .../gpu/drm/rockchip/dw_hdmi_qp-rockchip.c | 62 +++++++------------ > >>>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw_hdmi_qp-rockchip.c > >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw_hdmi_qp-rockchip.c > >>>> index 7d531b6f4c09..4e7794aa2dde 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw_hdmi_qp-rockchip.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw_hdmi_qp-rockchip.c > >>>> @@ -457,10 +457,8 @@ static int dw_hdmi_qp_rockchip_bind(struct device > >>>> *dev, struct device *master, > >>>> return -ENODEV; > >>>> > >>>> if (!cfg->ctrl_ops || !cfg->ctrl_ops->io_init || > >>>> - !cfg->ctrl_ops->irq_callback || > >>>> !cfg->ctrl_ops->hardirq_callback) { > >>>> - dev_err(dev, "Missing platform ctrl ops\n"); > >>>> - return -ENODEV; > >>>> - } > >>>> + !cfg->ctrl_ops->irq_callback || > >>>> !cfg->ctrl_ops->hardirq_callback) > >>>> + return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENODEV, "Missing platform > >>>> ctrl ops\n"); > >>> > >>> This only makes sense for the purpose of unification. > >> > >> Right, as mentioned in the commit description, the intention was to ensure > >> consistent error handling across the probe path rather than limiting the > >> scope > >> to -EPROBE_DEFER exclusively. > > > > Should I revert this change in v3 or keep it ? I see value in > > unification, but I don't mind either way. Dmitry, what's your preference > > ? > > I missed to point out this patch has been also sent a while ago as part of > another series [1] which should be ready for merging. It'd be great if > there's > no need to revert any changes, otherwise we need to keep those in sync. > > Regardless, I'll let you know if that gets applied first, allowing us to drop > this one after rebasing.
Thanks for the information. I'm happy to merge 3/5 on top of that series. The DT binding change in 1/5 can be merged separately. > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
