Re: [PATCH] extcon: fix extcon_get_extcon_dev() error handling

[Guenter Roeck]

On 11/18/21 3:32 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The extcon_get_extcon_dev() function returns error pointers on error
> and NULL when it's a -EPROBE_DEFER defer situation.  There are eight
> callers and only two of them handled this correctly.  In the other
> callers an error pointer return would lead to a crash.
>
> What prevents crashes is that errors can only happen in the case of
> a bug in the caller or if CONFIG_EXTCON is disabled.  Six out of
> eight callers use the Kconfig to either depend on or select
> CONFIG_EXTCON.  Thus the real life impact of these bugs is tiny.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> The two callers where the drivers can be built without CONFIG_EXTCON
> are TYPEC_FUSB302 and CHARGER_MAX8997.
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/fusb302.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/fusb302.c
> index 7a2a17866a82..8594b59bd527 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/fusb302.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/fusb302.c
> @@ -1706,8 +1706,8 @@ static int fusb302_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>   	 */
>   	if (device_property_read_string(dev, "linux,extcon-name", &name) == 0) {
>   		chip->extcon = extcon_get_extcon_dev(name);
> -		if (!chip->extcon)
> -			return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +		if (IS_ERR(chip->extcon))
> +			return PTR_ERR(chip->extcon);

Why does the code not need to return -EPROBE_DEFER ? The description states
that NULL is returned in that situation. Doesn't that mean that defer situations
are no longer handled with this patch in place ?

Also, with this patch in place, the code will no longer work if extcon is disabled,
because extcon_get_extcon_dev() will return -ENODEV and the above code will bail out.
The behavior of the code wasn't optimal in that case (it would wait until timeout
in tcpm_get_current_limit() before returning), but at least it didn't fail.

Thanks,
Guenter