> IMHO, this new series look much better. However, I still think the above code > is highly confusing (took me some time to see why you don't print the warning > on PROBE_DEFER, but do the goto in all cases). > > Would it be too much to ask to add some comments to it? Your previous > explanation about why we need to fail on EPROBE_DEFER, to allow the phy > driver to load, was great. Adding some of that here would be nice. Hi Ezequiel Anybody writing device drivers should know about EPROBE_DEFER. If they don't they are writing broken drivers. So putting in a comment here would be just pointing out the obvious. What i can however do is add a comment that devm_phy_get_optional() returns a valid phy if there is no error. Might that help with the confusion? Thanks Andrew -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
