On 11/06/2025 at 01:05, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 5:48 PM Vincent Mailhol
> <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/06/2025 at 23:05, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:55 PM Vincent Mailhol
>>> <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/06/2025 at 21:37, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> struct gpio_chip now has callbacks for setting line values that return
>>>>> an integer, allowing to indicate failures. Convert the driver to using
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> This does not match the address with which you sent the patch: brgl@xxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 16 ++++++++++------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c b/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>>>>> index ec5c64006a16f703bc816983765584c5f3ac76e8..7545497d14b46c6388f3976c2bf7b9a99e959c1e 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>>>>> @@ -530,8 +530,8 @@ static int mcp251x_gpio_get_multiple(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> -static void mcp251x_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
>>>>> - int value)
>>>>> +static int mcp251x_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
>>>>> + int value)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct mcp251x_priv *priv = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
>>>>> u8 mask, val;
>>>>> @@ -545,9 +545,11 @@ static void mcp251x_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
>>>>>
>>>>> priv->reg_bfpctrl &= ~mask;
>>>>> priv->reg_bfpctrl |= val;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>
>>>> mcp251x_gpio_set() calls mcp251x_write_bits() which calls mcp251x_spi_write()
>>>> which can fail.
>>>>
>>>> For this change to really make sense, the return value of mcp251x_spi_write()
>>>> should be propagated all the way around.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know this code so I followed the example of the rest of the
>>> codebase where the result of this function is never checked - even in
>>> functions that do return values. I didn't know the reason for this and
>>> so didn't want to break anything as I have no means of testing it.
>>
>> The return value of mcp251x_spi_write() is used in mcp251x_hw_reset(). In other
>> locations, mcp251x_spi_write() is only used in functions which return void, so
>> obviously, the return value is not checked.
>>
>
> Wait, after a second look GPIO callbacks (including those that return
> a value like request()) use mcp251x_write_bits() which has no return
> value.
Yes. Read again my first message:
mcp251x_gpio_set() calls mcp251x_write_bits() which calls mcp251x_spi_write()
which can fail.
My point is that the grand father can fail.
> It probably should propagate what mcp251x_spi_write() returns
Exactly what I asked for :)
> but that's material for a different series.
Why? Are you going to do this other series?
If the answer is no, then please just do it here. Propagating the error in
mcp251x_write_bits() is a three line change. Am I asking for too much?
> The goal of this one is to
> use the new setters treewide and drop the old ones from struct
> gpio_chip.
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol
