On 30/08/2024 12:52, 于佼良 wrote:
> On 2024/8/30 16:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 29/08/2024 14:48, Yu Jiaoliang wrote:
>>> Error handling in probe() can be a bit simpler with dev_err_probe().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Jiaoliang <yujiaoliang@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/soc/qcom/qcom-pbs.c | 7 +++----
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom-pbs.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom-pbs.c
>>> index 77a70d3d0d0b..ab9de12ec901 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom-pbs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom-pbs.c
>>> @@ -201,10 +201,9 @@ static int qcom_pbs_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> }
>>>
>>> ret = device_property_read_u32(pbs->dev, "reg", &val);
>>> - if (ret < 0) {
>>> - dev_err(pbs->dev, "Couldn't find reg, ret = %d\n", ret);
>>> - return ret;
>>> - }
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return dev_err_probe(pbs->dev, ret, "Couldn't find reg\n");
> Thank you for the feedback. I apologize for the oversight.
>> This cannot defer, so not much benefits.
> As noted in the dev_err_probe documentation, using this helper offers
> benefits like standardized error code formatting and more compact error
> paths.
>
> "Using this helper in your probe function is totally fine even if @err
> known to nerver be -EPROBE_DEFER. The benefit compared to a normal
> dev_err() is the standardized format of the error code, it being emitted
> syumbolically (i.e. you get "EAGAIN" instead of "-35") and the fact that
> the error code is returned which allows more compact error paths."
I know, I wrote a bit of patches for the kernel myself...
It's still for me little benefit.
>> And you ignore other place in
>> the probe()... That's like a weird pattern with all your patches change
>> something irrelevant, but leave other places unchanged.
> If you think it's OK, I will update the patch to include both
> modifications in the probe() function. I plan to submit patch v2 with
> these changes and hope it will be more acceptable.
Doing this one-by-one is churn. For me that's not correct.
Changing this everywhere in the driver is questionable/subjective: some
find it ok, some not (considering this cannot defer).
But, after looking at your other patches like this (see serial), I have
doubts you know what you are doing in general. And that's the real
problem. You send innocent patch which requires a serious review,
because you do not understand the code.
Please get a mentor which will guide you through this. Or do some more
impactful changes like fixing warnings.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
