Hi! On 2020-09-09 21:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 20:36, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:47:16 +0200 >> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Common pattern of handling deferred probe can be simplified with >>> dev_err_probe(). Less code and also it prints the error value. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >> I don't have the thread to hand, but this tripped a warning next >> and the patch was dropped as a result. See below. > > Thanks for letting me know. If you mean the warning caused by: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200909073716.GA560912@xxxxxxxxx/ > then the driver-core patch was dropped, not the iio one: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20200909074130.GB561485@xxxxxxxxx/T/#t > > So we are good here :) No, we are definitely not good. See below. That means "See below", and not "Please take a guess at what is being talking about". > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >> Jonathan >>> --- >>> >>> Changes since v2: >>> 1. Wrap dev_err_probe() lines at 80 character >>> >>> Changes since v1: >>> 1. Convert to devm_clk_get_optional >>> 2. Update also stm32-dfsdm-core and stm32-dac-core. >>> 3. Wrap around 100 characters (accepted by checkpatch). >>> --- >>> drivers/iio/adc/stm32-adc-core.c | 75 ++++++++++-------------------- >>> drivers/iio/adc/stm32-adc.c | 10 ++-- >>> drivers/iio/adc/stm32-dfsdm-adc.c | 10 ++-- >>> drivers/iio/adc/stm32-dfsdm-core.c | 9 ++-- >>> drivers/iio/dac/stm32-dac-core.c | 5 +- >>> 5 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/stm32-adc-core.c b/drivers/iio/adc/stm32-adc-core.c >>> index 0e2068ec068b..3f27b4817a42 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/stm32-adc-core.c >>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/stm32-adc-core.c >>> @@ -582,11 +582,9 @@ static int stm32_adc_core_switches_probe(struct device *dev, >>> priv->syscfg = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(np, "st,syscfg"); >>> if (IS_ERR(priv->syscfg)) { >>> ret = PTR_ERR(priv->syscfg); >>> - if (ret != -ENODEV) { >>> - if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) >>> - dev_err(dev, "Can't probe syscfg: %d\n", ret); >>> - return ret; >>> - } >>> + if (ret != -ENODEV) >>> + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Can't probe syscfg\n"); >>> + >>> priv->syscfg = NULL; >>> } >>> >>> @@ -596,12 +594,9 @@ static int stm32_adc_core_switches_probe(struct device *dev, >>> priv->booster = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "booster"); >>> if (IS_ERR(priv->booster)) { >>> ret = PTR_ERR(priv->booster); >>> - if (ret != -ENODEV) { >>> - if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) >>> - dev_err(dev, "can't get booster %d\n", >>> - ret); >>> - return ret; >>> - } >>> + if (ret != -ENODEV) >>> + dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "can't get booster\n"); >> >> This tripped a warning and got the patch dropped because we no longer >> return on error. As Jonathan already said, we no longer return in this hunk. I.e., you have clobbered the error path. Cheers, Peter
