linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/13] mfd: pm8008: fix regmap irq chip initialisation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75Vf0raEoVmvRKNxDQ7wdAOtwWYp_fQ1m8WBdnWEFGFOrYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 20:16:45 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, 
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@...cinc.com>, 
	Satya Priya <quic_c_skakit@...cinc.com>, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] mfd: pm8008: fix regmap irq chip initialisation

On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 6:01 PM Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 09:56:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Mon, May 06, 2024 at 05:08:19PM +0200, Johan Hovold kirjoitti:
> > > The regmap irq array is potentially shared between multiple PMICs and

..

> > > -                   dev_err(dev, "Failed to probe irq periphs: %d\n", rc);
> > > +                   dev_err(dev, "failed to add IRQ chip: %d\n", rc);
> >
> > dev_err_probe(...); ?
>
> This function won't return -EPROBE_DEFER,

This is not an argument for a long time (since documentation of
dev_err_probe() had been amended to encourage its use for any error
cases in probe).

> and that would be a separate
> change in any case.

Sure, but why to add a technical debt? Perhaps a precursor cleanup patch?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko