On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 02:14:14PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > On 9/22/22 20:03, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:45:35 +0300 ... > > > + dev_err(dev, "no regmap\n"); > > > > Use dev_err_probe() for all dev_err() stuff in probe paths. > > It ends up cleaner and we don't care about the tiny overhead > > of checking for deferred. > > This one bothers me a bit. It just does not feel correct to pass -EINVAL for > the dev_err_probe() so the dev_err_probe() can check if -EINVAL != > -EPROBE_DEFER. I do understand perfectly well the consistent use of > dev_err_probe() for all cases where we get an error-code from a function and > return it - but using dev_err_probe() when we hard-code the return value in > code calling the dev_err_probe() does not feel like "the right thing to do" > (tm). > > Eg, I agree that > return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "bar"); > is nice even if we know the function that gave us the "ret" never requests > defer (as that can change some day). > > However, I don't like issuing: > return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "bar"); This case specifically was added into documentation by 7065f92255bb ("driver core: Clarify that dev_err_probe() is OK even w/out -EPROBE_DEFER"). > Well, please let me know if you think the dev_err_probe() should be used > even in cases where we hard code the return to something... And this should be, of course, maintainer's decision. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko