[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10e77c5a-a188-698b-0c82-86c4bcdf114d@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 14:44:29 +0800
From: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
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
On 2024/9/12 21:38, Doug Anderson wrote:
> 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")
The main difference is that when use dev_err_probe(),there will print
anything on -ENOMEM now.
>
> -Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists