On 10/9/25 12:41 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > 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.
That series has been applied onto drm-misc-next. >> [1] >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ >
