[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZjzO6qB9_oExklaV@surfacebook.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 16:26:02 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
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
Thu, May 09, 2024 at 10:49:28AM +0200, Johan Hovold kirjoitti:
> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 08:16:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 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).
>
> There was apparently a kernel doc update made in December 2023:
>
> 532888a59505 ("driver core: Better advertise dev_err_probe()")
>
> to clarify that people are *allowed* to use it also for functions not
> returning -EPROBE_DEFER. That's hardly a long time ago and, importantly,
> this is of course still nothing that is *required*.
Fair enough.
> > > and that would be a separate
> > > change in any case.
> >
> > Sure, but why to add a technical debt? Perhaps a precursor cleanup patch?
>
> This is not in any way technical debt.
OK.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists