On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 05:59:38AM +0000, Carlos Song wrote:
> > > So we make this logic. Anyway we let the I2C controller registered whether
> > DMA is available or not(except defer probe).
> > > Ignoring ENODEV and EPROBE_DEFER makes it looks like nothing happened if
> > DMA is defer probed or not enabled(This is an expected).
> > > However we still need i2c DMA status is known when meet an unexpected
> > error, so we use dev_err_probe() to print error.
> >
> > Why dev_err_probe() instead of dev_err()?
> >
> Hi,
> In patch V2 discussion, Marc suggested just return dev_err_probe(), but I don't accept it so I choose to use dev_err_probe() to print error in V3.[1]
> In this case, the two APIs have the same function, do you mean dev_err() is more suitable?
Yes, dev_err_probe() should be used in combination with return. For
example:
return dev_err_probe(...);
It will pass the return value on exit of the function and optionally
print of the error message if it is not EPROBE_DEFER. Practically it
replace commonly used coding pattern:
if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
return ret;
} else if (ret) {
dev_err(..);
return ret;
}
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
