[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8403927.NyiUUSuA9g@jernej-laptop>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:55:22 +0200
From: Jernej Škrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
Subject:
Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] leds: sun50i-a100: Use match_string() helper to simplify
the code
Dne petek, 26. april 2024 ob 17:45:14 GMT +2 je Andy Shevchenko napisal(a):
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 05:37:42PM +0200, Jernej Škrabec wrote:
> > Dne petek, 26. april 2024 ob 17:25:15 GMT +2 je Andy Shevchenko napisal(a):
>
> ...
>
> > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, i, "Bad pixel format '%s'\n", format);
> >
> > I know that old code used dev_err_probe() without reason, but could you change
> > it to ordinary dev_err()?
>
> First of all, it's out of scope of _this_ patch.
>
> > dev_err_probe() is useful only when return code could be -EPROBE_DEFER.
>
> This is simply not true. We are trying to have a uniform output in ->probe()
> and even documentation for dev_err_probe() was changed long time ago to
> encourage using it for non deferred probe cases.
>
> > This is clearly not the case here.
>
> Is it a problem?
Sorry, I missed added note for non -EPROBE_DEFER cases.
Reviewed-by: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>
Best regards,
Jernej
Powered by blists - more mailing lists