From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 433FEC55162 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2026 17:27:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To: From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=YQIE8XgKYt/EUINULOT/JC5r+V7wX1jbi6M/ucAZS60=; b=ijmhk+agCJe9pYrPWVEroqT5ZS niInAEYgN9UTDKO94f5yuSh0CQiZWZfbdTogegPVa3TznyeaqEOtDot5YjCwdm7EkDZwhPBMVYgMM mRu61y/99NT2EYSoXk+ZfSsv1BJsLjqxRSW9KP5OQsd5NQ1H8uWbrbubG1H/PTF9uA+Xjo1UMJqtq rdvUq2iBXDDHz55gP553L+qMypnLHHKEAs/kClxLKqxMwxvQAx+v1o0YmN865z5Wxrq4hCC1a5d12 dNuTsEu2BDsHcuMNW9utYPD8KHEu9yeyZ03O+ZrydIcmUJaocdAePdLgJYprTMLm+7s2cpHxZCpe5 w/7jJrhA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wqZxp-0000000Ft7x-2sw3; Sun, 02 Aug 2026 17:27:05 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wqZxn-0000000Ft7k-3KbC for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 02 Aug 2026 17:27:03 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347476001A; Sun, 2 Aug 2026 17:27:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D9C91F00A3A; Sun, 2 Aug 2026 17:27:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785691621; bh=YQIE8XgKYt/EUINULOT/JC5r+V7wX1jbi6M/ucAZS60=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=kdgOrd1gSiqTPL+atSoKrTrrQNdxHnVW3zeXTYGN0bZ0IJt+tn32WLspNIF4GpFUo wlWn+kttl0ZfBnn6EWmiwJE4IaGwzwZ7tlYhN0z62Sde5LfTyLH5fOGdojkssJoaVV 0ebz2uTZr2QjAnNvFSACZzMdH7ZEuUzeWz4ewLUPbsUH0gvFSp8VU6VelC2+BZzmCM oylCdz8nLuyeeZTjm3Rx/xfzOwlcnFLP2rgSI26tZ2m330+pPhfJC/o7Tj0zFl7hIM DxiJVCY5w20PT0sr69VcS6SWzYxyQQTYe+k04rurnfyZd24g7ioAEuJhTh2MQzVj/z YKZ3Y97yMp4LA== Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2026 18:26:57 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: mdshahid03@gmail.com Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Joshua Crofts , Broadcom internal kernel list , David Lechner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nuno =?UTF-8?B?U8Oh?= , Ray Jui , Scott Branden Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] iio: adc: bcm_iproc_adc: Convert probe error handling to dev_err_probe() Message-ID: <20260802182657.65d459e0@jic23-huawei> In-Reply-To: <20260802103520.114582-1-mdshahid03@gmail.com> References: <20260802030433.696454fe@jic23-huawei> <20260802103520.114582-1-mdshahid03@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.52; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 16:05:20 +0530 mdshahid03@gmail.com wrote: > From: Mohammad Shahid > > Hi Jonathan, > > Thanks for the detailed review and suggestions. > > I'll address the formatting comments in patch 3 and also reduce the > unnecessary churn in patch 2 as you suggested. > > Regarding the suggestion to convert the probe cleanup to > devm_add_action_or_reset(), my intention was to keep this series focused > on the dev_err_probe() conversion and submit the devm-managed cleanup as > a separate follow-up series, since it is a larger refactoring. > > Would that approach be acceptable, or would you prefer that the cleanup > be included in this series? I'd leave the dev_err() prints where there is a goto alone and do them as part of the devm_ change so as to reduce churn on the code and shorter the eventual set of patches. Just add a note to the dev_err_probe() patch to say you are doing that and then they can be separate series. Or if you prefer just do the lot in one series. Thanks Jonathan > > Thanks, > Shahid