[PATCH] i2c: return probe deferred status on dev_pm_domain_attach

[PATCH] i2c: return probe deferred status on dev_pm_domain_attach

[Kieran Bingham]

A change of return status was introduced in commit 3fffd1283927
("i2c: allow specifying separate wakeup interrupt in device tree")

The commit prevents the defer status being passed up the call stack
appropriately when dev_pm_domain_attach returns -EPROBE_DEFER.

To fix we change this back to the original return status;

Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieranbingham@gmail.com>
---

 drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
index 5f89f1e..df83015 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
@@ -701,7 +701,7 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev)
 			goto err_detach_pm_domain;
 	}
 
-	return 0;
+	return status;
 
 err_detach_pm_domain:
 	dev_pm_domain_detach(&client->dev, true);
-- 
2.1.4

Re: [PATCH] i2c: return probe deferred status on dev_pm_domain_attach

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 606 bytes --]

Hi Kiera,

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 12:39:31PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> A change of return status was introduced in commit 3fffd1283927
> ("i2c: allow specifying separate wakeup interrupt in device tree")

Thanks for catching this!

> The commit prevents the defer status being passed up the call stack
> appropriately when dev_pm_domain_attach returns -EPROBE_DEFER.
> 
> To fix we change this back to the original return status;

What about going to the error path?

> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieranbingham@gmail.com>

Please add a "Fixes: <sha1>" tag here.

   Wolfram


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] i2c: return probe deferred status on dev_pm_domain_attach

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 58 bytes --]


And add the original patch author to CC when resending.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] i2c: return probe deferred status on dev_pm_domain_attach

[Kieran Bingham]

Hi Wolfram,

On 12 October 2015 at 08:23, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote:
> Hi Kiera,
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 12:39:31PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>> A change of return status was introduced in commit 3fffd1283927
>> ("i2c: allow specifying separate wakeup interrupt in device tree")
>
> Thanks for catching this!

NP : Saw it when re-basing my other series.

>> The commit prevents the defer status being passed up the call stack
>> appropriately when dev_pm_domain_attach returns -EPROBE_DEFER.
>>
>> To fix we change this back to the original return status;
>
> What about going to the error path?

Sounds reasonable :D


>> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieranbingham@gmail.com>
>
> Please add a "Fixes: <sha1>" tag here.

Sure.

>
>    Wolfram
>

Re: [PATCH] i2c: return probe deferred status on dev_pm_domain_attach

[Kieran Bingham]

On 12 October 2015 at 08:24, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote:
>
> And add the original patch author to CC when resending.
>

Bah - I was sure I'd added him ... must have slipped.

Should I add Cc: stable? or are they notified from the Fixes: tag?
--
Regards

Kieran

Re: [PATCH] i2c: return probe deferred status on dev_pm_domain_attach

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 226 bytes --]


> Should I add Cc: stable? or are they notified from the Fixes: tag?

My preference is: I'll add stable when I commit to my tree. I am happy
if people tell me when they think this should be done.

In this case, it should :)


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] i2c: return probe deferred status on dev_pm_domain_attach

[Kieran Bingham]

On 12 October 2015 at 20:40, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote:
>
>> Should I add Cc: stable? or are they notified from the Fixes: tag?
>
> My preference is: I'll add stable when I commit to my tree. I am happy
> if people tell me when they think this should be done.
>
> In this case, it should :)
>

Agreed :)
I'm happy to follow your process and preference and let you add.

- Patch v2 posted.

--
Regards

Kieran