Hi,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 11:44 PM Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2024/9/12 21:38, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 8:53 PM Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Oh, I see. You're saying that we should just get rid of the print
altogether because the only error case is -ENOMEM and the kernel
already splats there? Yeah, that sounds right to me. That doesn't
match what you did in v5, though...
-Doug
