Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Mar 2024 12:34:01 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] spi: Fix error code checking in spi_mem_exec_op() | From | Florian Fainelli <> |
| |
On 3/13/24 12:29, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13 2024, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> On 3/13/24 11:28, Pratyush Yadav wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 13 2024, Michael Walle wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed Mar 13, 2024 at 6:10 PM CET, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>>>> After commit cff49d58f57e ("spi: Unify error codes by replacing -ENOTSUPP with >>>>> -EOPNOTSUPP"), our SPI NOR flashes would stop probing with the following >>>>> visible in the kernel log: >>>>> >>>>> [ 2.196300] brcmstb_qspi f0440920.qspi: using bspi-mspi mode >>>>> [ 2.210295] spi-nor: probe of spi1.0 failed with error -95 >>>>> >>>>> It turns out that the check in spi_mem_exec_op() was changed to check >>>>> for -ENOTSUPP (old error code) or -EOPNOTSUPP (new error code), but this >>>>> means that for drivers that were converted, the second condition is now >>>>> true, and we stop falling through like we used to. Fix the error to >>>>> check for neither error being neither -ENOTSUPP *nor* -EOPNOTSUPP. >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: cff49d58f57e ("spi: Unify error codes by replacing -ENOTSUPP with -EOPNOTSUPP") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com> >>>>> Change-Id: I4159811f6c582c4de2143382473d2000b8755872 >>>> >>>> Ha, thank you! >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org> >>>> >>>> FWIW in next, there is commit >>>> e63aef9c9121e ("spi: spi-mem: add statistics support to ->exec_op() calls") >>>> that probably will conflict with this one. >>>> >>>> Also, - not for this patch - but with that logic, spi_mem_exec_op() >>>> might return EOPNOTSUPP *or* ENOTSUPP, even for drivers which might >>>> still return ENOTSUPP, because there is one condition in >>>> spi_mem_exec_op() which will always return EOPNOTSUPP. That is >>>> somewhat confusing, no? >>> I agree. I suppose it would be better to do: >>> if (!ret) >>> return 0; >>> if (ret == -ENOTSUPP || ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) >>> return -EOPNOTSUPP; >>> >> >> But with e63aef9c9121e ("spi: spi-mem: add statistics support to ->exec_op() >> calls") applied, would not that mean duplicating the statistics gathering, or >> were the statistics gathering only intended for when ret == 0? > > Hmm, I didn't properly understand this. Ignore my suggestion. Your patch > does the right thing.
What I meant is that e63aef9c9121e will increment statistics not just when we return 0 from ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op, but also if we return -ENOTSUPP or -EOPNOTSUPP, and I am not sure if this is exactly what is intended. But this is somewhat orthogonal.
> > In this case we should return ret when: > > ret is 0 > OR > when ret is not -EOPNOTSUPP or -ENOTSUPP. > > So if we get either of the two we _won't_ return and continue forward. > > From looking at just this, spi_mem_exec_op() only returns -EOPNOTSUPP so > far since it has: > > if (!spi_mem_internal_supports_op(mem, op)) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > But then looking further, it has: > > ret = spi_sync(mem->spi, &msg); > > if (ret) > return ret; > > spi_sync() can return -ENOTSUPP if it goes via __spi_async(). I suppose > we would need to fix that if we want consistent return codes. But that > isn't a problem this patch should fix. So with the merge conflict fixed > up,
Thanks, although as I replied to Mark in the other branch of the thread, since this is a regression affecting v6.8, would not we want it to be fast tracked, and not based upon for-next?
> > Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org> >
-- Florian
[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature] | |