Re: [PATCH v2] iio: dac: adi-axi-dac: Make use of dev_err_probe()

[Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 15:54:29 +0000
Nuno Sá via B4 Relay <devnull+nuno.sa.analog.com@kernel.org> wrote:

> From: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com>
> 
> Be consistent and use dev_err_probe() as in all other places in the
> .probe() path.
> 
> While at it, remove the line break in the version condition. Yes, it
> goes over the 80 column limit but I do think the line break hurts
> readability in this case. And use a struct device *dev helper for
> neater code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com>

This has turned into a bit of an X and Y and Z patch.  In theory
should be split up but I guess it's not too bad.

However I'm not sure why you fixed one indent and left a bunch of similar
cases looking worse?

Jonathan

> ---
> Ended up dropping the dev_info() -> dev_dbg() patch.
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Patch 1
>   * Added helper struct device variable as suggested by Andy;
>   * Removed the braces as suggested by David.
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251203-iio-axi-dac-minor-changes-v1-0-b54650cbeb33@analog.com
> ---
>  drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c b/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c
> index 0d525272a8a8..ceab9f6fa3b4 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/adi-axi-dac.c


>  	/* Let's get the core read only configuration */
>  	ret = regmap_read(st->regmap, AXI_DAC_CONFIG_REG, &st->reg_config);
> @@ -975,34 +972,34 @@ static int axi_dac_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	mutex_init(&st->lock);
>  
> -	ret = devm_iio_backend_register(&pdev->dev, st->info->backend_info, st);
> +	ret = devm_iio_backend_register(dev, st->info->backend_info, st);
>  	if (ret)
> -		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret,
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
>  				     "failed to register iio backend\n");
>  
> -	device_for_each_child_node_scoped(&pdev->dev, child) {
> +	device_for_each_child_node_scoped(dev, child) {
>  		int val;
>  
>  		if (!st->info->has_child_nodes)
> -			return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL,
> +			return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL,
>  					     "invalid fdt axi-dac compatible.");
>  
>  		/* Processing only reg 0 node */
>  		ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &val);
>  		if (ret)
> -			return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret,
> +			return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
>  						"invalid reg property.");
>  		if (val != 0)
> -			return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL,
> +			return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL,
>  						"invalid node address.");
>  
>  		ret = axi_dac_create_platform_device(st, child);
>  		if (ret)
> -			return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL,
> -						"cannot create device.");
> +			return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL,
> +					     "cannot create device.");
I'm not against this fixing up the indent but why not the ones above htat look
just as bad?


>  	}
>  
> -	dev_info(&pdev->dev, "AXI DAC IP core (%d.%.2d.%c) probed\n",
> +	dev_info(dev, "AXI DAC IP core (%d.%.2d.%c) probed\n",
>  		 ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MAJOR(ver),
>  		 ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MINOR(ver),
>  		 ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_PATCH(ver));
> 
> ---
> base-commit: f9e05791642810a0cf6237d39fafd6fec5e0b4bb
> change-id: 20251203-iio-axi-dac-minor-changes-945fa5f2e1eb
> --
> 
> Thanks!
> - Nuno Sá
> 
> 
> 
>