On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 02:58:14PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
Am 17.02.2020 um 14:38 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller hns@goldelico.com:
If the gpios are probed after this driver (e.g. if they come from an i2c expander) there is no need to print an error message.
Signed-off-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller hns@goldelico.com
drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c index edc5016f46f1..cea58d0cb457 100644 --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c @@ -205,14 +205,18 @@ static int palmas_usb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
palmas_usb->id_gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "id", GPIOD_IN);
- if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) {
- if (PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
return -EPROBE_DEFER;- } else if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) {
Hm.
While looking again at that: why do we need the "{" and "} else "?
It should be sufficient to have
palmas_usb->id_gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "id", GPIOD_IN);
- if (PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
return -EPROBE_DEFER;What do you think is better coding style here?
How about something like this? (just an idea with some work left for you ;-))
--- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-palmas.c @@ -206,8 +206,10 @@ static int palmas_usb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) palmas_usb->id_gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "id", GPIOD_IN); if (IS_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod)) { - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get id gpio\n"); - return PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod); + status = PTR_ERR(palmas_usb->id_gpiod); + if (status != -EPROBE_DEFER) + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get id gpio: %d\n", status); + return status; }
palmas_usb->vbus_gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "vbus",