Re: [PATCH] phy: can-transceiver: Re-instate "mux-states" property presence check

[Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>]

On 19/03/2025 at 23:06, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> For some reasons, I received your message twice (with a two minutes
> interval between both messages). These look identical. I am answering
> the most recent. :)
> 
> On 19/03/2025 at 22:27, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On the Renesas Gray Hawk Single development board:
>>
>>     can-transceiver-phy can-phy0: /can-phy0: failed to get mux-state (0)
>>
>> "mux-states" is an optional property for CAN transceivers.  However,
>> mux_get() always prints an error message in case of an error, including
>> when the property is not present, confusing the user.
> 
> Hmmm, I understand why you are doing this patch. But on the long term,
> wouldn't it make more sense to have a devm_mux_state_get_optional()? Or
> maybe add a property somewhere to inform devm_mux_state_get() that this
> is optional?
> 
> Regardless, just see this as an open question. I am OK with the approach
> of your patch.

Ah, and I just realized that you mentioned the exact same thing under
the --- cutter, which for some reasons my eyes refused to see.

Sorry for the noise.

>> Fix this by re-instating the property presence check.
>>
>> This is bascially a revert of commit d02dfd4ceb2e9f34 ("phy:
>> can-transceiver: Drop unnecessary "mux-states" property presence
>> check"), with two changes:
>>   1. Use the proper API for checking whether a property is present,
>>   2. Do not print an error message, as the mux core already takes care
>>      of that.
>>
>> Fixes: d02dfd4ceb2e9f34 ("phy: can-transceiver: Drop unnecessary "mux-states" property presence check")> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> 
> Notwithstanding of above comment:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol