RE: [PATCH 1/7] iio: frequency: adrf6780: use dev_err_probe in probe path

[Miclaus, Antoniu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 3:59 PM
> To: Miclaus, Antoniu <Antoniu.Miclaus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx>; Hennerich, Michael
> <Michael.Hennerich@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sa, Nuno <Nuno.Sa@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] iio: frequency: adrf6780: use dev_err_probe in probe
> path
> 
> [External]
> 
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 03:56:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 03:11:39PM +0200, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > >  	ret = __adrf6780_spi_update_bits(st, ADRF6780_REG_CONTROL,
> > >  					 ADRF6780_SOFT_RESET_MSK,
> > >
> FIELD_PREP(ADRF6780_SOFT_RESET_MSK, 1));
> > > -	if (ret) {
> > > -		dev_err(&spi->dev, "ADRF6780 SPI software reset failed.\n");
> > > -		return ret;
> > > -	}
> > > +	if (ret)
> > > +		return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, ret,
> > > +				     "ADRF6780 SPI software reset failed.\n");
> >
> > Consider adding
> >
> > 	struct device *dev = &spi->dev;

Definitely makes sense, but for me feels a bit out of the scope of this series. 
Want me to add the *dev = &spi->dev; here or in a separate patchseries?


> > at the top, so this line becomes
> >
> > 		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "ADRF6780 SPI software reset
> failed.\n");
> >
> > (while at it, I would dare to drop 'SPI' from the message as is easy to derive
> that
> >  the device in question is connected to SPI bus.)
> >
> > 		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "ADRF6780 software reset
> failed.\n");
> 
> ...
> 
> > Ditto for the rest.
> 
> And also for the entire series (except patch 5 where it seems already
> the case).
> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>