On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:16:59PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:23:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:55:34AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: ... > > True. And above dev_err_probe() is not needed. > > You argue that dev_err_probe() gives no benefit as > lgm_reset_control_deassert won't return -EPROBE_DEFER, right? > > Still I consider it a useful function because > > a) I (as an author or as a reviewer) don't need to think if the > failing function might return -EPROBE_DEFER now or in the future. > dev_err_probe does the right thing even for functions that don't > return -EPROBE_DEFER. > > b) With dev_err_probe() I can accomplish things in a single line that > need two lines when open coding it. > > c) dev_err_probe() emits the symbolic error name without having to > resort to %pe + ERR_PTR. > > d) Using dev_err_probe() for all error paths gives a consistency that I > like with a maintainer's hat on. > > So I still want to request using dev_err_probe() in all error paths. As a maintainer it is your choice. I really would like to see more consensus among maintainers, some are insisting of what I said, some, like you, on the opposite, some hate that API and some simply don't care. And on top of that I saw already use of API without taking returned value into account. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
