Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] i2c: mlxbf: Use dev_err_probe in probe function

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 08/08/2023 13:29, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 08/08/2023 03:29, 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.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> @@ -2413,10 +2399,8 @@ static int mlxbf_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, mlxbf_i2c_irq,
>>>  			       IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_PROBE_SHARED,
>>>  			       dev_name(dev), priv);
>>> -	if (ret < 0) {
>>> -		dev_err(dev, "Cannot get irq %d\n", irq);
>>> -		return ret;
>>> -	}
>>> +	if (ret < 0)
>>> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Cannot get irq %d\n", irq);
>>
>> I don't think this is needed:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230721094641.77189-1-frank.li@xxxxxxxx/
> 
> Hmm, that's a bit borderline, I'd say. The change to

What's borderline exactly? devm_request_threaded_irq_probe() is coming,
right? If it is accepted this hunk is useless and soon should be
replaced with proper one.

Instead of making many trivial changes doing the same, all these series
should be aligned.

> devm_request_irq/devm_request_threaded_irq_probe seems like
> something for another series. But for now, I think I'll accept
> this as it is since it fits within the scope of this current
> series.


Best regards,
Krzysztof