On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:55:34AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 04:23:37PM +0800, Rahul Tanwar wrote:
...
> > + ret = lgm_clk_enable(dev, pc);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "failed to enable clock\n");
>
> You used dev_err_probe four times for six error paths. I wonder why you
> didn't use it here (and below for a failing pwmchip_add()).
dev_err_probe() makes sense when we might experience deferred probe. In neither
of mentioned function this can be the case.
> > + return ret;
> > + }
...
> > + ret = lgm_reset_control_deassert(dev, pc);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "cannot deassert reset control\n");
>
> After lgm_reset_control_deassert is called pc->rst is unused. So there
> is no need to have this member in struct lgm_pwm_chip. The same applies
> to ->clk. (You have to pass rst (or clk) to devm_add_action_or_reset for
> that to work. Looks like a nice idea anyhow.)
True. And above dev_err_probe() is not needed.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
