Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iio: adc: qcom-spmi-adc5-gen3: Share SDAM0 IRQ with ADC_TM auxiliary driver

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 04:13:07PM +0530, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
> On 6/4/2026 8:14 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 11:46:30AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 02:35:20 +0300
> >> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 04:26:09PM +0530, Jishnu Prakash wrote:

...

> >>>> +	ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, adc->dev_data.base[ADC5_GEN3_VADC_SDAM].irq,
> >>>> +					NULL, adc5_gen3_isr, IRQF_ONESHOT | IRQF_SHARED,
> >>>> +					adc->dev_data.base[ADC5_GEN3_VADC_SDAM].irq_name,
> >>>> +					adc);
> >>>>  	if (ret)
> >>>>  		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
> >>>>  				     "Failed to request SDAM%d irq\n",  
> >>>
> >>> Also add a patch to drop this duplicate message.
> >>
> >> There is another thread going on this.  It might not be duplicate
> >> if -EPROBE_DEFER is returned.  The message won't be printed but it
> >> will be logged for helping debug deferred probe reasons.
> > 
> > Yes, and I explained that it is duplicated as long as I understand current
> > code base.
> 
> After I checked for Andy's first comment, my understanding was that
> devm_request_threaded_irq would internally call dev_err_probe in case
> of an error, so this dev_err_probe print above would not be needed.

Correct.

> Please let me know if it's better to keep or remove this print.

You already know my position here :-)

> And if I make the change, shall I add it in a separate patch
> before or after this patch in the next series?

The rule of thumb is to make sure your series won't do ping-pong type of
changes: when one patch introduces (or moves) some code that is removed or
modified in different way by another patch in the same series.

> >> So maybe we have been a little too energetic in removing these.
> > 
> > Or maybe sashiko consumed a bit of LSD :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko