[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 16:58:27 +0200
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Nuno Sa
<nuno.sa@...log.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Olivier Moysan
<olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>, Jyoti Bhayana <jbhayana@...gle.com>, Chris
Down <chris@...isdown.name>, John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>, Greg
Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] iio: backend: make use of dev_errp_probe()
On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 15:23 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:06:25PM +0200, Nuno Sa wrote:
> > Using dev_errp_probe() to simplify the code.
>
> ...
>
> > + if (IS_ERR(fwnode))
> > + return dev_errp_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(fwnode),
> > + "Cannot get Firmware reference\n");
>
> ERR_CAST() seems quite good candidate to have here.
>
> return dev_errp_probe(dev, fwnode, "Cannot get Firmware
> reference\n");
>
> (Assuming dev_errp_probe() magically understands that, note you may have it as
> a macro and distinguish parameter type with _Generic() or so and behave
> differently: ERR_PTR() vs. ERR_CAST(), see acpi_dev_hid_uid_match()
> implementation, but also keep in mind that it doesn't distinguish NULL/0,
> there
> is a patch available in the mailing list to fix that, though.)
>
Do we care that much for going with that trouble? I understand like this we go
PTR_ERR() to then comeback to ERR_PTR() but this for probe() which is not a
fastpath. So perhaps we could just keep it simple?
- Nuno Sá
Powered by blists - more mailing lists