Re: [PATCH 8/9] i2c: imx-lpi2c: Use dev_err_probe in probe function

[Liao, Chang]

在 2023/8/7 19:55, Andi Shyti 写道:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 06:44:23PM +0800, Liao, Chang wrote:
>> Hi, Andi
>>
>> 在 2023/8/7 16:17, Andi Shyti 写道:
>>> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:13:30AM +0800, Liao, Chang wrote:
>>>> Hi, Andi
>>>>
>>>> 在 2023/8/5 6:16, Andi Shyti 写道:
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 05:57:36PM +0800, Liao Chang wrote:
>>>>>> Use the dev_err_probe function instead of dev_err in the probe function
>>>>>> so that the printed messge includes the return value and also handles
>>>>>> -EPROBE_DEFER nicely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx-lpi2c.c | 12 ++++--------
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx-lpi2c.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx-lpi2c.c
>>>>>> index c3287c887c6f..bfa788b3775b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx-lpi2c.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx-lpi2c.c
>>>>>> @@ -569,10 +569,8 @@ static int lpi2c_imx_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>  		sizeof(lpi2c_imx->adapter.name));
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  	ret = devm_clk_bulk_get_all(&pdev->dev, &lpi2c_imx->clks);
>>>>>> -	if (ret < 0) {
>>>>>> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't get I2C peripheral clock, ret=%d\n", ret);
>>>>>> -		return ret;
>>>>>> -	}
>>>>>> +	if (ret < 0)
>>>>>> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "can't get I2C peripheral clock\n");
>>>>>
>>>>> you cut on this because the line was going over 100 characters? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> In theory you shouldn't change the print message when doing such
>>>>> changes and you can still split it as:
>>>>>
>>>>> 		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret,
>>>>> 				     "can't get I2C peripheral clock, ret=%d\n",
>>>>> 				     ret);
>>>>>
>>>>> and you're even within the 80 characters.
>>>>
>>>> Since dev_err_probe always print the second parameter that happens to be the return value,
>>>> I remove the "ret=%d" from the original message to avoid a redundant error message.
>>>>
>>>> So is it better to keep the original message unchanged, even though dev_err_probe also prints
>>>> the return error value? Or is it better to make this change so that all error messages printed
>>>> in the probe function include the return value in a consistent style?
>>>
>>> yes, you are right! Then please ignore this comment, but...
>>>
>>>>>   	ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, lpi2c_imx_isr, 0,
>>>>>   		pdev->name, lpi2c_imx);
>>>>> - 	if (ret) {
>>>>> - 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't claim irq %d\n", irq);
>>>>> - 		return ret;
>>>>> - 	}
>>>>> + 	if (ret)
>>>>> + 		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "can't claim irq %d\n", irq);
>>>
>>> please make it coherent to this second part, as well, where the
>>> error number is printed.
>>
>> Do you mean to convert it to the following?
>>
>>     if (ret)
>>         return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "can't claim irq\n");
>>
>> I understand that the style of error message printed by dev_err_probe is like
>> "error [ERRNO]: [customized message]", the [ERRNO] comes from 2nd parameter,
>> [customized message] comes from 3rd paramter, if the original [customized message]it
>> also print ERRNO, i intend to remove it in this patch, otherwise, I will just keep it.
>> In the above code, [customized message] intend to print irq but return value, so it is
>> better to keep the original message, right?
> 
> sorry... I just got confused and read wrong the code. Please
> ignore my comments on this patch, you are right here. Feel free
> to add.

Thanks, I will add a bit more information to explain the changes made in these patches in v3.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> 
> Andi

-- 
BR
Liao, Chang