[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=U+kc1rKSDDo-Zx+CiuapoJ8izrCW0Wh-PfR7ivY_4bXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 06:38:46 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, akashast@...eaurora.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] spi: geni-qcom: Use devm functions to simplify code
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 8:53 PM Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> >> @@ -1132,6 +1134,12 @@ static int spi_geni_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> if (ret)
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, spi_geni_release_dma_chan, mas);
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + dev_err(dev, "Unable to add action.\n");
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> >
> > Use dev_err_probe() to simplify.
> >
> > ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, spi_geni_release_dma_chan, mas);
> > if (ret)
> > return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Unable to add action.\n");
>
> It seems that if it only return -ENOMEM or 0, using dev_err_probe() has
> not not much value for many community maintainers.
While I won't insist, it still has some value to use dev_err_probe()
as I talked about in commit 7065f92255bb ("driver core: Clarify that
dev_err_probe() is OK even w/out -EPROBE_DEFER").
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists