Hi Dmitry Torokhov, Thanks for the feedback. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 8:49 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Input: da9063 - Use dev_err_probe() > > On December 12, 2023 8:28:45 PM GMT+11:00, Geert Uytterhoeven > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Hi Biju, > > > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:03 AM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Mon, Dec 11, > >> > 2023 at 5:57 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > wrote: > >> > > Replace dev_err()->dev_err_probe() to simpilfy probe(). > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> OK, I will send > >> > >> 1) separate patch for dropping unneeded prints related to OOM > >> 2) A patch for replacing dev_err()->dev_err_probe() + Update error > >> message for devm_request_threaded_irq() > >> 3) separate patch for dropping print message for > >> input_register_device(); > >> > >> Is it ok? > > > >Personally, I'd be fine with just a single "cleanup error printing" > patch. > >But Dmitry has the final say. > > I'm fine with a single patch unless you feel strongly about splitting it > in 2. I will split into 2, 1) First patch for dropping redundant print messages. 2) Replace dev_err()->dev_err_probe() Cheers, Biju
