On Sat, 2024-04-06 at 20:54 +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 05:07:17PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:12:25 +0300 > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 04:58:27PM +0200, Nuno Sá wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 15:23 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:06:25PM +0200, Nuno Sa wrote: > > > > > > Using dev_errp_probe() to simplify the code. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > + if (IS_ERR(fwnode)) > > > > > > + return dev_errp_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(fwnode), > > > > > > + "Cannot get Firmware > > > > > > reference\n"); > > > > > > > > > > ERR_CAST() seems quite good candidate to have here. > > > > > > > > > > return dev_errp_probe(dev, fwnode, "Cannot get > > > > > Firmware > > > > > reference\n"); > > > > > > > > > > (Assuming dev_errp_probe() magically understands that, note you may > > > > > have it as > > > > > a macro and distinguish parameter type with _Generic() or so and > > > > > behave > > > > > differently: ERR_PTR() vs. ERR_CAST(), see acpi_dev_hid_uid_match() > > > > > implementation, but also keep in mind that it doesn't distinguish > > > > > NULL/0, > > > > > there > > > > > is a patch available in the mailing list to fix that, though.) > > > > > > > > Do we care that much for going with that trouble? > > > > > > I don't think we do. We are not supposed to be called with ret == 0/NULL. > > > That's why I pointed out to the current version. > > > > > > > I understand like this we go > > > > PTR_ERR() to then comeback to ERR_PTR() but this for probe() which is > > > > not a > > > > fastpath. So perhaps we could just keep it simple? > > > > > > It's not about performance, it's about readability. See the difference > > > between > > > yours and mine. > > > > > > > You are suggesting making it transparently take an error ptr or an integer? > > Whilst clever, I'm not seeing that as a good idea for readability / > > reviewability. > > I expect something that looks like a function to take the same parameters > > (other vargs) > > always. _Generic messes with that. > > > > Maybe I just don't like to learn new things! If consensus comes down in > > favour > > of _Generic trickery then I'll get used to it eventually. > > the whole point of the dev_err_...() functions is to add trickery > in order to reduce code and brackets. > I'm not sure I'm completely convinced on having more helpers but also no strong opinion tbh. But see below... > The way I see this is to have a combination of functions: > > - takes integer, returns integer -> dev_err_probe() > - takes integer, returns pointer -> dev_errp_probe() (or dev_err_ptr_probe()) > - takes pointer, return integer -> ? dev_ptr_err_probe() This is pretty much all the dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(), ...) we already have out there. Do we really want to have this variant? > - takes pointer, returns pointer -> ? dev_ptr_probe() dev_ptr_probe() misses to be clear about being an error and think this is pretty much the ERR_CAST() case right? Maybe dev_err_cast_ptr_probe()? Or dev_err_cast_probe()? - Nuno Sá
