[Linux-stm32] [PATCH v3 08/18] iio: adc: stm32: Simplify with dev_err_probe()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thursday, September 10, 2020, Peter Rosin <peda at axentia.se> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On 2020-09-09 21:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 20:36, Jonathan Cameron <jic23 at kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:47:16 +0200
> >> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Common pattern of handling deferred probe can be simplified with
> >>> dev_err_probe().  Less code and also it prints the error value.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >> I don't have the thread to hand, but this tripped a warning next
> >> and the patch was dropped as a result. See below.
> >
> > Thanks for letting me know. If you mean the warning caused by:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200909073716.GA560912@kroah.com/
> > then the driver-core patch was dropped, not the iio one:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20200909074130.GB561485@
> kroah.com/T/#t
> >
> > So we are good here :)
>
> No, we are definitely not good. See below. That means "See below", and
> not "Please take a guess at what is being talking about".
>



> >>> @@ -596,12 +594,9 @@ static int stm32_adc_core_switches_probe(struct
> device *dev,
> >>>               priv->booster = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev,
> "booster");
> >>>               if (IS_ERR(priv->booster)) {
> >>>                       ret = PTR_ERR(priv->booster);
> >>> -                     if (ret != -ENODEV) {
> >>> -                             if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> >>> -                                     dev_err(dev, "can't get booster
> %d\n",
> >>> -                                             ret);
> >>> -                             return ret;
> >>> -                     }
> >>> +                     if (ret != -ENODEV)
> >>> +                             dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "can't get
> booster\n");
> >>
> >> This tripped a warning and got the patch dropped because we no longer
> >> return on error.
>
> As Jonathan already said, we no longer return in this hunk. I.e., you have
> clobbered the error path.


Exactly my point why I proposed _must_check in the first place.



-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://st-md-mailman.stormreply.com/pipermail/linux-stm32/attachments/20200910/1fd5cf34/attachment.html>