Re: [PATCH 3/4] hwmon: Add support for Amphenol ChipCap 2

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 09/11/2023 09:59, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09.11.23 09:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 08/11/2023 17:35, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	data->regulator = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vdd");
>>>>> +	if (!IS_ERR(data->regulator)) {
>>>>> +		ret = cc2_retrive_alarm_config(data);
>>>>> +		if (ret)
>>>>> +			goto cleanup;
>>>>> +	} else {
>>>>> +		/* No access to EEPROM without regulator: no alarm control */
>>>>
>>>> Test your code with deferred probe. Are you sure you handle it
>>>> correctly? To me, it looks like you handle deferred probe the same as
>>>> any error.
>>>>
>>> The -EPROBE_DEFER is propagated to the probe function and it is the
>>> returned value. I clarified the error path in v2 so no error messages
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> I see:
>> if (!IS_ERR(data->regulator)) {
>> 	// so you do not go here
>> } else {
>> 	goto dev_register;
>> }
>> dev_register is not error path. So how do you return EPROBE_DEFER?
>>
>> Which line of code does it?
>>
> EPROBE_DEFER is returned if the command window was missed, which is

How "command window was missed" is related to the place I commented?

> checked in cc2_retrieve_alarm_config() (there is a typo I just corrected
> -> cc2_retrive_alarm_config() in the current version). It could then
> happen where you added a comment, but not because
> devm_regulator_get_optional() failed.
> 
> Are you expecting a probe deferring if devm_regulator_get_optional()
> fails as well? Like if the regulator is still not ready when the
> function is called.

We talk only about this place. Not others.


Best regards,
Krzysztof