Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: qca: set power_ctrl_enabled on NULL returned by gpiod_get_optional()

[Wren Turkal <wt@penguintechs.org>]

On 4/24/24 5:59 AM, quic_zijuhu wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 8:29 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
>>
>> Any return value from gpiod_get_optional() other than a pointer to a
>> GPIO descriptor or a NULL-pointer is an error and the driver should
>> abort probing. That being said: commit 56d074d26c58 ("Bluetooth: hci_qca:
>> don't use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() with gpiod_get_optional()") no longer sets
>> power_ctrl_enabled on NULL-pointer returned by
>> devm_gpiod_get_optional(). Restore this behavior but bail-out on errors.
>> While at it: also bail-out on error returned when trying to get the
>> "swctrl" GPIO.
>>
>> Reported-by: Wren Turkal <wt@penguintechs.org>
>> Reported-by: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bluetooth/1713449192-25926-2-git-send-email-quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com/
>> Fixes: 56d074d26c58 ("Bluetooth: hci_qca: don't use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() with gpiod_get_optional()")
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> is it really reviewed-by Krzysztof?
> suggest reviewer give explicit review-by tag by public way, then you add
> this tag.
>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> v1 -> v2:
>> - also restore the previous behavior for QCA6390 and other models that
>>    fall under the default: label in the affected switch case
>> - bail-out on errors when getting the swctrl GPIO too
>>
>>   drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
>> index 92fa20f5ac7d..0e98ad2c0c9d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
>> @@ -2327,16 +2327,21 @@ static int qca_serdev_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>>   		    (data->soc_type == QCA_WCN6750 ||
>>   		     data->soc_type == QCA_WCN6855)) {
>>   			dev_err(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire BT_EN gpio\n");
>> -			power_ctrl_enabled = false;
>> +
> think about what will happen for present lunched products if this type
> error really happens.
> BT don't work at all with your change. BT can be used mostly without
> your change.
> 			return PTR_ERR(qcadev->bt_en);
>>   		}
>>   
>> +		if (!qcadev->bt_en)
>> +			power_ctrl_enabled = false;
>> +
> you don't answer me how to treat a required enable is not configured by user
>>   		qcadev->sw_ctrl = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&serdev->dev, "swctrl",
>>   					       GPIOD_IN);
>>   		if (IS_ERR(qcadev->sw_ctrl) &&
>>   		    (data->soc_type == QCA_WCN6750 ||
>>   		     data->soc_type == QCA_WCN6855 ||
>> -		     data->soc_type == QCA_WCN7850))
>> -			dev_warn(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire SW_CTRL gpio\n");
>> +		     data->soc_type == QCA_WCN7850)) {
>> +			dev_err(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire SW_CTRL gpio\n");
>> +			return PTR_ERR(qcadev->sw_ctrl);have the same question as above.
>> +		}
>>   
>>   		qcadev->susclk = devm_clk_get_optional(&serdev->dev, NULL);
>>   		if (IS_ERR(qcadev->susclk)) {
>> @@ -2355,10 +2360,13 @@ static int qca_serdev_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>>   		qcadev->bt_en = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&serdev->dev, "enable",
>>   					       GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
>>   		if (IS_ERR(qcadev->bt_en)) {
>> -			dev_warn(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire enable gpio\n");
>> -			power_ctrl_enabled = false;
>> +			dev_err(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire enable gpio\n");
>> +			return PTR_ERR(qcadev->bt_en);
>>   		}
>>
> have the same question as above.
> is it right for such prompt ?
>> +		if (!qcadev->bt_en)
>> +			power_ctrl_enabled = false;
>> +
>>   		qcadev->susclk = devm_clk_get_optional(&serdev->dev, NULL);
>>   		if (IS_ERR(qcadev->susclk)) {
>>   			dev_warn(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire clk\n");
> have the same question as above.
> 
> how do you known the root cause of the issue reported without my earlier
> debugging and fix?

Without your debugging, this fix would not have been possible.

> 
> do my fix regarding the issue i concerned have any  fault?
> 
> NAK by me.
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
You're more amazing than you think!