Re: [PATCH 3/4] iio: backend: make use of dev_errp_probe()

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:12:25 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 04:58:27PM +0200, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 15:23 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:06:25PM +0200, Nuno Sa wrote:  
> > > > Using dev_errp_probe() to simplify the code.  
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +	if (IS_ERR(fwnode))
> > > > +		return dev_errp_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(fwnode),
> > > > +				      "Cannot get Firmware reference\n");  
> > > 
> > > ERR_CAST() seems quite good candidate to have here.
> > > 
> > > 		return dev_errp_probe(dev, fwnode, "Cannot get Firmware
> > > reference\n");
> > > 
> > > (Assuming dev_errp_probe() magically understands that, note you may have it as
> > >  a macro and distinguish parameter type with _Generic() or so and behave
> > >  differently: ERR_PTR() vs. ERR_CAST(), see acpi_dev_hid_uid_match()
> > >  implementation, but also keep in mind that it doesn't distinguish NULL/0,
> > > there
> > >  is a patch available in the mailing list to fix that, though.)  
> > 
> > Do we care that much for going with that trouble?  
> 
> I don't think we do. We are not supposed to be called with ret == 0/NULL.
> That's why I pointed out to the current version.
> 
> > I understand like this we go
> > PTR_ERR() to then comeback to ERR_PTR() but this for probe() which is not a
> > fastpath. So perhaps we could just keep it simple?  
> 
> It's not about performance, it's about readability. See the difference between
> yours and mine.
> 

You are suggesting making it transparently take an error ptr or an integer?
Whilst clever, I'm not seeing that as a good idea for readability / reviewability.
I expect something that looks like a function to take the same parameters (other vargs)
always.  _Generic messes with that.

Maybe I just don't like to learn new things!  If consensus comes down in favour
of _Generic trickery then I'll get used to it eventually.

Jonathan