On 9/1/20 17:21, Lukasz Stelmach wrote:
It was <2020-08-25 wto 21:06>, when Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 8/21/20 18:13, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
Check return values in prepare_dma() and s3c64xx_spi_config() and
propagate errors upwards.
Signed-off-by: Łukasz Stelmach<l.stelm...@samsung.com>
---
drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
@@ -298,12 +299,24 @@ static void prepare_dma(struct s3c64xx_spi_dma_data *dma,
desc = dmaengine_prep_slave_sg(dma->ch, sgt->sgl, sgt->nents,
dma->direction, DMA_PREP_INTERRUPT);
+ if (!desc) {
+ dev_err(&sdd->pdev->dev, "unable to prepare %s scatterlist",
+ dma->direction == DMA_DEV_TO_MEM ? "rx" : "tx");
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
desc->callback = s3c64xx_spi_dmacb;
desc->callback_param = dma;
dma->cookie = dmaengine_submit(desc);
+ ret = dma_submit_error(dma->cookie);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(&sdd->pdev->dev, "DMA submission failed");
+ return -EIO;
Just return the error value from dma_submit_error() here?
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
static inline int dma_submit_error(dma_cookie_t cookie)
{
return cookie < 0 ? cookie : 0;
}
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Not quite meaningful IMHO, is it?
dma_submit_error() returns 0 or an error code, I think it makes sense
to propagate that error code rather than replacing it with -EIO.
