On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 10:13, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:58:57 +0200 > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 08:52, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 10, 2020, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> 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. > > oops. That is what I get for reading an email very quickly then looking > at the code a few hours later. Still a problem here we need to fix > unless I'm missing something. > > > >> > > > >> > 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". > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >>> @@ -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. > > > > > > > > > Exactly my point why I proposed _must_check in the first place. > > > > That was not exactly that point as you did not mention possible errors > > but only "miss the opportunity to optimize". Optimization is different > > things than a mistake. > > In this particular case we have introduced a bug. If the regulator returns > an error other than -ENODEV we will carry on when really should error out. > This includes deferred probe route in which it won't print a message but also won't > actually defer. Yes, I see, Peter pointed this out. The commit was actually not dropped from next so I will send a fixup. Best regards, Krzysztof
