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
