Re: [PATCH RFC v4 02/15] spi: add basic support for SPI offloading

[David Lechner]

On 11/11/24 11:14 AM, David Lechner wrote:
> On 10/26/24 10:05 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:59:09 -0500
>> David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
> 
> ...
> 
>>> +struct spi_offload *devm_spi_offload_get(struct device *dev,
>>> +					 struct spi_device *spi,
>>> +					 const struct spi_offload_config *config)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct spi_offload *offload;
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	if (!spi || !config)
>>> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>> +
>>> +	if (!spi->controller->get_offload)
>>> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>> +
>>> +	offload = spi->controller->get_offload(spi, config);
>>
>> Why let this return an offload that is already in use?
>> Maybe make that a problem for the spi controller
>> Seems odd to pass it spi then set it later.
>>
>> I.e. have this return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> 
> I would expect that to effectively be handled by the
> if (IS_ERR(offload)) below. Only the controller can
> know which offloads are already in use, so the callback
> should return the appropriate -EBUSY in that case.

Just realized I said exactly what you said! Will fix this.

> 
>>
>>
>>> +	if (IS_ERR(offload))
>>> +		return offload;
>>> +
>>> +	if (offload->spi)
>>> +		return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>>> +
>>> +	offload->spi = spi;
>>> +	get_device(offload->provider_dev);
>>> +
>>> +	ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, spi_offload_put, offload);
>>> +	if (ret)
>>> +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
>>> +
>>> +	return offload;
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_spi_offload_get);
>