From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f182.google.com (mail-pf1-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44FE64653A; Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.182 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723055919; cv=none; b=PHj+mQ60Hwc4hGOzWUF4PxAzi+hwqQ0j20KGxtsivKlBWGJDg27deUrfwGR2hGA+mz+/Cht0Ri4HvaFSzz+TjfQvsHDa8oLKXjTBPcd843yHS/NJDu4xYTTYALjlOinNcHp2ioqMO6COEULepmwFzxbJGvund6n/MDz2W4++XNY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723055919; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ma5knbmN34MSI03mkT7FloKBYCg2Csz7tEsOg/INh4M=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=S+LDguRkAi17u+QDzXsHUnAG6mn7WMEEDLpl/f/pz7KE488EBdX4CRfisGVcom4nZMMMBtcMk6r9VLZInogO2hlyK/Vcr0FDOv6jrZiClj8gzM9DdJhEyJMucXYooXO1HHUAJuyqEfMfgWiRgEIN3Ymc1UOWcRIru9ULHTwgGT4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=roeck-us.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=XfdIJB4m; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.182 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=roeck-us.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="XfdIJB4m" Received: by mail-pf1-f182.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-70d2b921cdfso193896b3a.0; Wed, 07 Aug 2024 11:38:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1723055917; x=1723660717; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:autocrypt:from :content-language:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=MHZu6Ag/9qKzgb4ZqxJhiR7NIGjVSmJ1XSyPMQ5cI10=; b=XfdIJB4mARtta+1PO8a2K09AZyIKonajQudNBxyTj7R1ERg//dOAV+VYppWWwkrY91 ZWrY0yOeaxhAeCkDKtkhAtJMDg4nRU5qEIXCfOGRjEDtIG8pQchYv7cqN9dTZHZkXPex k515SuMkagSaDbdQJrkDbbA+wXLbbILrOs0AaKCq9Uo7Z0aypSEFEtrHDCtfl9khoPU3 AfZTrDohGMYQ9/gn2Spi0UAPmNbg8Of9KNEgU4dbN5J3txKLypgxO/LNec6RmFiGJbT0 flsDPDXsnS3Hazwv8QHuWNlgtboHjHHie4eCvBvPqaXS5las6y38nSLCUxnVJYx8QV4J +ZSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723055917; x=1723660717; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:autocrypt:from :content-language:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=MHZu6Ag/9qKzgb4ZqxJhiR7NIGjVSmJ1XSyPMQ5cI10=; b=AFFZS+ZLmfWT2y0i0aqdr83povFO01j+oNqeyQUUaYMPosUhSZ82rYcEU2xZRhKIVY FstapXyVOTiMfiq/l32H3TCQ2R6E33r8+tar1nL0y/XLwNvwo0SfO42DEUMv9tudaa0b nP0ehsuJsJamxlQrNIqkea5Xnhrfr72JtU6Nhz6Seus8HNTJaTk5OJIEE7oyHpAV72qN zVYPVe6144kbAQNTXkbATp27c4tNvLkqlJ80dNlcpVJqTh71jX62OO1o36I8I5utNa+P OX2gySfNPVahkKLA1Xy4Pigvr/7BTGypdd/Sj342n9V/XxXEpgxegL4vOioPdMpenGuY ISAQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUebVlJYMuS9M2GGERRYQlHUgdT8uxr3ombQm50xYtZ28zmTPMUHSZsiSqG8ci4Ic6kZtv27Dcb9L2Mi/N+uYwOtteyk3PMSLQUZrJPyR7gyQEjiOXvVR8YQg287YoHPtncF5SmsukGohw= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwgMBb07vdUEaAvr5hA8rNPDQs+IxrCo4Trf4fo/MtuYcio6EJ+ kK+jfDPO2Z35+ZDUB4xwG5oLhmAn+15bow+3HzhYg6f36DkmUkQU X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE29lXDJY0DJgZzjwEH7h/3o7kLHX3laqmrwpTO+ckQzdByOSlQCUSu2Nellw3JaiKg102baA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:d510:b0:1c0:bce5:c19c with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1c699579612mr23682342637.12.1723055917340; Wed, 07 Aug 2024 11:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2600:1700:e321:62f0:329c:23ff:fee3:9d7c? ([2600:1700:e321:62f0:329c:23ff:fee3:9d7c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-7106ec4292fsm8695485b3a.73.2024.08.07.11.38.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Aug 2024 11:38:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 11:38:34 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (lm93) Return error values on read failure To: Abhishek Tamboli , jdelvare@suse.com Cc: skhan@linuxfoundation.org, rbmarliere@gmail.com, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240807181746.508972-1-abhishektamboli9@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Guenter Roeck Autocrypt: addr=linux@roeck-us.net; keydata= xsFNBE6H1WcBEACu6jIcw5kZ5dGeJ7E7B2uweQR/4FGxH10/H1O1+ApmcQ9i87XdZQiB9cpN RYHA7RCEK2dh6dDccykQk3bC90xXMPg+O3R+C/SkwcnUak1UZaeK/SwQbq/t0tkMzYDRxfJ7 nyFiKxUehbNF3r9qlJgPqONwX5vJy4/GvDHdddSCxV41P/ejsZ8PykxyJs98UWhF54tGRWFl 7i1xvaDB9lN5WTLRKSO7wICuLiSz5WZHXMkyF4d+/O5ll7yz/o/JxK5vO/sduYDIlFTvBZDh gzaEtNf5tQjsjG4io8E0Yq0ViobLkS2RTNZT8ICq/Jmvl0SpbHRvYwa2DhNsK0YjHFQBB0FX IdhdUEzNefcNcYvqigJpdICoP2e4yJSyflHFO4dr0OrdnGLe1Zi/8Xo/2+M1dSSEt196rXaC kwu2KgIgmkRBb3cp2vIBBIIowU8W3qC1+w+RdMUrZxKGWJ3juwcgveJlzMpMZNyM1jobSXZ0 VHGMNJ3MwXlrEFPXaYJgibcg6brM6wGfX/LBvc/haWw4yO24lT5eitm4UBdIy9pKkKmHHh7s jfZJkB5fWKVdoCv/omy6UyH6ykLOPFugl+hVL2Prf8xrXuZe1CMS7ID9Lc8FaL1ROIN/W8Vk BIsJMaWOhks//7d92Uf3EArDlDShwR2+D+AMon8NULuLBHiEUQARAQABzTJHdWVudGVyIFJv ZWNrIChMaW51eCBhY2NvdW50KSA8bGludXhAcm9lY2stdXMubmV0PsLBgQQTAQIAKwIbAwYL CQgHAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4ACGQEFAlVcphcFCRmg06EACgkQyx8mb86fmYFg0RAA nzXJzuPkLJaOmSIzPAqqnutACchT/meCOgMEpS5oLf6xn5ySZkl23OxuhpMZTVX+49c9pvBx hpvl5bCWFu5qC1jC2eWRYU+aZZE4sxMaAGeWenQJsiG9lP8wkfCJP3ockNu0ZXXAXwIbY1O1 c+l11zQkZw89zNgWgKobKzrDMBFOYtAh0pAInZ9TSn7oA4Ctejouo5wUugmk8MrDtUVXmEA9 7f9fgKYSwl/H7dfKKsS1bDOpyJlqhEAH94BHJdK/b1tzwJCFAXFhMlmlbYEk8kWjcxQgDWMu GAthQzSuAyhqyZwFcOlMCNbAcTSQawSo3B9yM9mHJne5RrAbVz4TWLnEaX8gA5xK3uCNCeyI sqYuzA4OzcMwnnTASvzsGZoYHTFP3DQwf2nzxD6yBGCfwNGIYfS0i8YN8XcBgEcDFMWpOQhT Pu3HeztMnF3HXrc0t7e5rDW9zCh3k2PA6D2NV4fews9KDFhLlTfCVzf0PS1dRVVWM+4jVl6l HRIAgWp+2/f8dx5vPc4Ycp4IsZN0l1h9uT7qm1KTwz+sSl1zOqKD/BpfGNZfLRRxrXthvvY8 BltcuZ4+PGFTcRkMytUbMDFMF9Cjd2W9dXD35PEtvj8wnEyzIos8bbgtLrGTv/SYhmPpahJA l8hPhYvmAvpOmusUUyB30StsHIU2LLccUPPOwU0ETofVZwEQALlLbQeBDTDbwQYrj0gbx3bq 7kpKABxN2MqeuqGr02DpS9883d/t7ontxasXoEz2GTioevvRmllJlPQERVxM8gQoNg22twF7 pB/zsrIjxkE9heE4wYfN1AyzT+AxgYN6f8hVQ7Nrc9XgZZe+8IkuW/Nf64KzNJXnSH4u6nJM J2+Dt274YoFcXR1nG76Q259mKwzbCukKbd6piL+VsT/qBrLhZe9Ivbjq5WMdkQKnP7gYKCAi pNVJC4enWfivZsYupMd9qn7Uv/oCZDYoBTdMSBUblaLMwlcjnPpOYK5rfHvC4opxl+P/Vzyz 6WC2TLkPtKvYvXmdsI6rnEI4Uucg0Au/Ulg7aqqKhzGPIbVaL+U0Wk82nz6hz+WP2ggTrY1w ZlPlRt8WM9w6WfLf2j+PuGklj37m+KvaOEfLsF1v464dSpy1tQVHhhp8LFTxh/6RWkRIR2uF I4v3Xu/k5D0LhaZHpQ4C+xKsQxpTGuYh2tnRaRL14YMW1dlI3HfeB2gj7Yc8XdHh9vkpPyuT nY/ZsFbnvBtiw7GchKKri2gDhRb2QNNDyBnQn5mRFw7CyuFclAksOdV/sdpQnYlYcRQWOUGY HhQ5eqTRZjm9z+qQe/T0HQpmiPTqQcIaG/edgKVTUjITfA7AJMKLQHgp04Vylb+G6jocnQQX JqvvP09whbqrABEBAAHCwWUEGAECAA8CGwwFAlVcpi8FCRmg08MACgkQyx8mb86fmYHNRQ/+ J0OZsBYP4leJvQF8lx9zif+v4ZY/6C9tTcUv/KNAE5leyrD4IKbnV4PnbrVhjq861it/zRQW cFpWQszZyWRwNPWUUz7ejmm9lAwPbr8xWT4qMSA43VKQ7ZCeTQJ4TC8kjqtcbw41SjkjrcTG wF52zFO4bOWyovVAPncvV9eGA/vtnd3xEZXQiSt91kBSqK28yjxAqK/c3G6i7IX2rg6pzgqh hiH3/1qM2M/LSuqAv0Rwrt/k+pZXE+B4Ud42hwmMr0TfhNxG+X7YKvjKC+SjPjqp0CaztQ0H nsDLSLElVROxCd9m8CAUuHplgmR3seYCOrT4jriMFBtKNPtj2EE4DNV4s7k0Zy+6iRQ8G8ng QjsSqYJx8iAR8JRB7Gm2rQOMv8lSRdjva++GT0VLXtHULdlzg8VjDnFZ3lfz5PWEOeIMk7Rj trjv82EZtrhLuLjHRCaG50OOm0hwPSk1J64R8O3HjSLdertmw7eyAYOo4RuWJguYMg5DRnBk WkRwrSuCn7UG+qVWZeKEsFKFOkynOs3pVbcbq1pxbhk3TRWCGRU5JolI4ohy/7JV1TVbjiDI HP/aVnm6NC8of26P40Pg8EdAhajZnHHjA7FrJXsy3cyIGqvg9os4rNkUWmrCfLLsZDHD8FnU mDW4+i+XlNFUPUYMrIKi9joBhu18ssf5i5Q= In-Reply-To: <20240807181746.508972-1-abhishektamboli9@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 8/7/24 11:17, Abhishek Tamboli wrote: > Fix the issue of lm93_read_byte() and lm93_read_word() return 0 on > read failure after retries, which could be confused with valid data. > > Address the TODO: what to return in case of error? > > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Tamboli > --- > drivers/hwmon/lm93.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c > index be4853fad80f..b76f3c1c6297 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm93.c > @@ -798,6 +798,7 @@ static unsigned LM93_ALARMS_FROM_REG(struct block1_t b1) > static u8 lm93_read_byte(struct i2c_client *client, u8 reg) This is still returning an u8. > { > int value, i; > + int ret; > > /* retry in case of read errors */ > for (i = 1; i <= MAX_RETRIES; i++) { > @@ -808,14 +809,14 @@ static u8 lm93_read_byte(struct i2c_client *client, u8 reg) > dev_warn(&client->dev, > "lm93: read byte data failed, address 0x%02x.\n", > reg); > + ret = value; > mdelay(i + 3); > } > > } > > - /* what to return in case of error? */ > dev_err(&client->dev, "lm93: All read byte retries failed!!\n"); Those messages only make sense if there is no error return. > - return 0; > + return ret; This is pointless and actually dangerous unless the calling code actually checks the return value and aborts on error. > } > > static int lm93_write_byte(struct i2c_client *client, u8 reg, u8 value) > @@ -836,6 +837,7 @@ static int lm93_write_byte(struct i2c_client *client, u8 reg, u8 value) > static u16 lm93_read_word(struct i2c_client *client, u8 reg) > { > int value, i; > + int ret; > > /* retry in case of read errors */ > for (i = 1; i <= MAX_RETRIES; i++) { > @@ -846,14 +848,14 @@ static u16 lm93_read_word(struct i2c_client *client, u8 reg) > dev_warn(&client->dev, > "lm93: read word data failed, address 0x%02x.\n", > reg); > + ret = value; > mdelay(i + 3); > } > > } > > - /* what to return in case of error? */ > dev_err(&client->dev, "lm93: All read word retries failed!!\n"); > - return 0; > + return ret; Same as above. Actually, your patch makes the problem worse because the errors are still ignored and at the same time report more or less random values to the user (the error code truncated to an unsigned 8 or 16 bit value). Is this just a blind patch, submitted as kind of an exercise, or do you have an actual use case for this driver ? The driver is in such bad shape that it should be left alone unless someone actually needs it and is able to test any changes. Otherwise changes like this just increase risk (or, rather, make it even worse) without real benefit. Thanks, Guenter