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

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 21:53:33 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

Ah. I'd missed that wrapper devm_request_result()

Thanks!

> 
> > 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 :-)  
>